用于评估记忆的多试用免费回忆。

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-23 DOI:10.1037/neu0000910
R T Adrogue, N Herz, D J Halpern, J Tracy, M J Kahana
{"title":"用于评估记忆的多试用免费回忆。","authors":"R T Adrogue, N Herz, D J Halpern, J Tracy, M J Kahana","doi":"10.1037/neu0000910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Much of our knowledge concerning the neural basis of human memory derives from lab-based verbal recall tasks. Outside of the lab, clinicians use validated and normed neuropsychological tests to assess patients' memory function and to evaluate clinical interventions. Here we sought to establish the clinical validity of examining memory through multitrial free recall of semantically organized and unrelated word lists.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We compare memory performance in multitrial free recall tasks with the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and the California Verbal Learning Test, two common neuropsychological tests aimed at evaluating memory function in clinical settings. We compare predictive validity between the tasks by evaluating deficits in a patient sample and examining age-related declines in memory. We additionally compare test-retest reliability, establish convergent validity, and show the emergence of common recall dynamics between the tasks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We demonstrate that both laboratory free recall tasks have better predictive validity and test-retest reliability than the established neuropsychological tests. We further show that all tasks have good convergent validity and reveal core memory processes, including temporal and semantic organization. However, we also demonstrate the benefits of repeated trials for evaluating the dynamics of memory search and their neuropsychological sequelae.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results provide evidence for the clinical validity of lab-based multitrial free recall tasks and highlight their psychometric benefits over neuropsychological measures. Based on these results, we discuss the need to bridge the gap between clinical understanding of putative mechanisms underlying memory disorders and neuroscientific findings obtained using lab-based free recall tasks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":19205,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"58-68"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multitrial free recall for evaluating memory.\",\"authors\":\"R T Adrogue, N Herz, D J Halpern, J Tracy, M J Kahana\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/neu0000910\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Much of our knowledge concerning the neural basis of human memory derives from lab-based verbal recall tasks. Outside of the lab, clinicians use validated and normed neuropsychological tests to assess patients' memory function and to evaluate clinical interventions. Here we sought to establish the clinical validity of examining memory through multitrial free recall of semantically organized and unrelated word lists.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We compare memory performance in multitrial free recall tasks with the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and the California Verbal Learning Test, two common neuropsychological tests aimed at evaluating memory function in clinical settings. We compare predictive validity between the tasks by evaluating deficits in a patient sample and examining age-related declines in memory. We additionally compare test-retest reliability, establish convergent validity, and show the emergence of common recall dynamics between the tasks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We demonstrate that both laboratory free recall tasks have better predictive validity and test-retest reliability than the established neuropsychological tests. We further show that all tasks have good convergent validity and reveal core memory processes, including temporal and semantic organization. However, we also demonstrate the benefits of repeated trials for evaluating the dynamics of memory search and their neuropsychological sequelae.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results provide evidence for the clinical validity of lab-based multitrial free recall tasks and highlight their psychometric benefits over neuropsychological measures. Based on these results, we discuss the need to bridge the gap between clinical understanding of putative mechanisms underlying memory disorders and neuroscientific findings obtained using lab-based free recall tasks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"58-68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000910\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000910","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们关于人类记忆的神经基础的大部分知识来源于基于实验室的言语回忆任务。在实验室之外,临床医生使用经过验证和规范的神经心理学测试来评估患者的记忆功能并评估临床干预措施。在这里,我们试图通过对语义组织和不相关单词列表的多试验自由回忆来建立检查记忆的临床有效性。方法:我们将多试验自由回忆任务中的记忆表现与Rey听觉言语学习测试和California言语学习测试进行比较,这两种常见的神经心理学测试旨在评估临床环境中的记忆功能。我们通过评估患者样本中的缺陷和检查与年龄相关的记忆力下降来比较任务之间的预测有效性。此外,我们还比较了重测信度,建立了收敛有效性,并显示了任务之间出现的共同回忆动态。结果:我们证明,与已建立的神经心理学测试相比,两种无实验室回忆任务都具有更好的预测有效性和重测可靠性。我们进一步证明,所有任务都具有良好的收敛有效性,并揭示了核心记忆过程,包括时间和语义组织。然而,我们也证明了重复试验对评估记忆搜索动力学及其神经心理后遗症的好处。结论:这些结果为基于实验室的多试验自由回忆任务的临床有效性提供了证据,并强调了其心理测量优于神经心理学测量。基于这些结果,我们讨论了弥合对记忆障碍潜在机制的临床理解与使用基于实验室的自由回忆任务获得的神经科学发现之间差距的必要性。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multitrial free recall for evaluating memory.

Objective: Much of our knowledge concerning the neural basis of human memory derives from lab-based verbal recall tasks. Outside of the lab, clinicians use validated and normed neuropsychological tests to assess patients' memory function and to evaluate clinical interventions. Here we sought to establish the clinical validity of examining memory through multitrial free recall of semantically organized and unrelated word lists.

Method: We compare memory performance in multitrial free recall tasks with the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and the California Verbal Learning Test, two common neuropsychological tests aimed at evaluating memory function in clinical settings. We compare predictive validity between the tasks by evaluating deficits in a patient sample and examining age-related declines in memory. We additionally compare test-retest reliability, establish convergent validity, and show the emergence of common recall dynamics between the tasks.

Results: We demonstrate that both laboratory free recall tasks have better predictive validity and test-retest reliability than the established neuropsychological tests. We further show that all tasks have good convergent validity and reveal core memory processes, including temporal and semantic organization. However, we also demonstrate the benefits of repeated trials for evaluating the dynamics of memory search and their neuropsychological sequelae.

Conclusions: These results provide evidence for the clinical validity of lab-based multitrial free recall tasks and highlight their psychometric benefits over neuropsychological measures. Based on these results, we discuss the need to bridge the gap between clinical understanding of putative mechanisms underlying memory disorders and neuroscientific findings obtained using lab-based free recall tasks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychology
Neuropsychology 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology publishes original, empirical research; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and theoretical articles on the relation between brain and human cognitive, emotional, and behavioral function.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信