5 results
Subjective memory complaints predict baseline but not future cognitive function over three years: results from the Western Australia Memory Study
- Hamid R. Sohrabi, Michael Weinborn, Christoph Laske, Kristyn A. Bates, Daniel Christensen, Kevin Taddei, Stephanie R. Rainey-Smith, Belinda M. Brown, Samantha L. Gardener, Simon M. Laws, Georgia Martins, Samantha C. Burnham, Romola S. Bucks, Barry Reisberg, Nicola T. Lautenschlager, Jonathan Foster, Ralph N. Martins
-
- Journal:
- International Psychogeriatrics / Volume 31 / Issue 4 / April 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 October 2018, pp. 513-525
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background:
This study investigated the characteristics of subjective memory complaints (SMCs) and their association with current and future cognitive functions.
Methods:A cohort of 209 community-dwelling individuals without dementia aged 47–90 years old was recruited for this 3-year study. Participants underwent neuropsychological and clinical assessments annually. Participants were divided into SMCs and non-memory complainers (NMCs) using a single question at baseline and a memory complaints questionnaire following baseline, to evaluate differential patterns of complaints. In addition, comprehensive assessment of memory complaints was undertaken to evaluate whether severity and consistency of complaints differentially predicted cognitive function.
Results:SMC and NMC individuals were significantly different on various features of SMCs. Greater overall severity (but not consistency) of complaints was significantly associated with current and future cognitive functioning.
Conclusions:SMC individuals present distinctive features of memory complaints as compared to NMCs. Further, the severity of complaints was a significant predictor of future cognition. However, SMC did not significantly predict change over time in this sample. These findings warrant further research into the specific features of SMCs that may portend subsequent neuropathological and cognitive changes when screening individuals at increased future risk of dementia.
Contributors
-
- By Agoston T. Agoston, Syed Z. Ali, Mahul B. Amin, Daniel A. Arber, Pedram Argani, Sylvia L. Asa, Rebecca N. Baergen, Zubair W. Baloch, Andrew M. Bellizzi, Kurt Benirschke, Allen Burke, Kenneth B. Calder, Karen L. Chang, Rebecca D. Chernock, Wang Cheung, Thomas V. Colby, Byron P. Croker, Ronald A. DeLellis, Edward F. DiCarlo, Ralph C. Eagle, Hormoz Ehya, Brett M. Elicker, Tarik M. Elsheikh, Robert E. Fechner, Linda D. Ferrell, Melina B. Flanagan, Douglas B. Flieder, Christopher S. Foster, Lillian Gaber, Karuna Garg, Kim R. Geisinger, Ryan M. Gill, Eric F. Glassy, David J. Glembocki, Zachary D. Goodman, Robert O. Greer, David J. Grignon, Gerardo E. Guiter, Kymberly A. Gyure, Ian S. Hagemann, Michael R. Henry, Jason L. Hornick, Ralph H. Hruban, Phyllis C. Huettner, Peter A. Humphrey, Olga B. Ioffe, Edward C. Klatt, Michael J. Klein, Ernest E. Lack, James N. Lampros, Lester J. Layfield, Robin D. LeGallo, Kevin O. Leslie, James S. Lewis, Virginia A. LiVolsi, Alberto M. Marchevsky, Anne Marie McNicol, Mitra Mehrad, Elizabeth Montgomery, Cesar A. Moran, Christopher A. Moskaluk, George J. Netto, G. Petur Nielsen, Robert D. Odze, Arthur S. Patchefsky, James W. Patterson, Elizabeth N. Pavlisko, John D. Pfeifer, Celeste N. Powers, Richard A. Prayson, Anja C. Roden, Victor L. Roggli, Andrew E. Rosenberg, Sherif Said, Margie A. Scott, Raja R. Seethala, Carlie S. Sigel, Jan F. Silverman, Bruce R. Smoller, Edward B. Stelow, Nora C. J. Sun, Mark W. Teague, Satish K. Tickoo, Thomas M. Ulbright, Paul E. Wakely, Jun Wang, Lawrence M. Weiss, Mark R. Wick, Howard H. Wu, Rhonda K. Yantiss, Charles Zaloudek, Yaxia Zhang, Xiaohui Sheila Zhao
- Edited by Mark R. Wick, University of Virginia, Virginia A. LiVolsi, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, John D. Pfeifer, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Edward B. Stelow, University of Virginia, Paul E. Wakely, Jr
-
- Book:
- Silverberg's Principles and Practice of Surgical Pathology and Cytopathology
- Published online:
- 13 March 2015
- Print publication:
- 26 March 2015, pp vii-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
13 - Social behaviour in microorganisms
-
- By Kevin R. Foster, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
- Edited by Tamás Székely, University of Bath, Allen J. Moore, University of Exeter, Jan Komdeur, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
-
- Book:
- Social Behaviour
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 18 November 2010, pp 331-356
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
OVERVIEW
Sociobiology has come a long way. We now have a solid base of evolutionary theory supported by a myriad of empirical tests. It is perhaps less appreciated, however, that first discussions of social behaviour and evolution in Darwin's day drew upon single-celled organisms. Since then, microbes have received short shrift, and their full spectrum of sociality has only recently come to light. Almost everything that a microorganism does has social consequences; simply dividing can consume another's resources. Microbes also secrete a wide range of products that affect others, including digestive enzymes, toxins, molecules for communication and DNA that allows genes to mix both within and among species. Many species do all of this in surface-attached communities, known as biofilms, in which the diversity of species and interactions reaches bewildering heights. Grouping can even involve differentiation and development, as in the spectacular multicellular escape responses of slime moulds and myxobacteria. Like any society, however, microbes face conflict, and most groups will involve instances of both cooperation and competition among their members. And, as in any society, microbial conflicts are mediated by three key processes: constraints on rebellion, coercion that enforces compliance, and kinship whereby cells direct altruistic aid towards clone-mates.
6 - Social evolution theory: a review of methods and approaches
-
- By Tom Wenseleers, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, Andy Gardner, University of Oxford, UK, Kevin R. Foster, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
- Edited by Tamás Székely, University of Bath, Allen J. Moore, University of Exeter, Jan Komdeur, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
-
- Book:
- Social Behaviour
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 18 November 2010, pp 132-158
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Overview
Over the past decades much progress has been made in understanding the evolutionary factors that can promote social behaviour. Nevertheless, the bewildering range of methods that have been employed leave many confused. Here we review some of the major approaches that can be used to model social evolution, including the neighbour-modulated fitness, inclusive fitness and multilevel selection methods. Through examples we show how these different methodologies can yield complementary insight into the evolutionary causes of social behaviour, and how, for a wide range of problems, one method can be translated into the other without affecting the final conclusion. We also review some recent developments, such as the evolution of cooperation in spatial settings and networks, and multilocus extensions of the theory, and discuss some remaining challenges in social evolution theory.
The puzzle of altruism
Individuals sometimes give up resources to benefit their neighbours, to the extent that this helping lowers the individual's reproductive fitness. Such altruistic traits (Table 6.1) pose a difficulty for Darwin's theory of natural selection, which emphasises the spread of individually advantageous traits (Darwin1859). Yet altruism abounds in the natural world, and is observed in settings as diverse as bacteria (Chapter 13), multicellular organisms with specialised non-reproductive tissues (Michod 1999, Strassmann & Queller 2007), social insects with a sterile worker caste (Bourke & Franks 1995, Ratnieks et al. 2006, Ratnieks & Wenseleers 2008), and, of course, human society (Chapter 15; Gintis et al. 2005). Thus, altruism poses a major problem for evolutionary theory.
Contributors
-
- By Robert S. Agnew, Lara M. Belliston, Daniel M. Blonigen, Michel Boivin, Jeanne Brooks‐Gunn, Andrew Canastar, Noel A. Card, Emil F. Coccaro, Nicki R. Crick, Linda L. Dahlberg, Garth Davies, Scott H. Decker, Kenneth A. Dodge, Dorothy L. Espelage, Jeffrey Fagan, Albert D. Farrell, David P. Farrington, Daniel J. Flannery, Mark S. Fleisher, Vangie A. Foshee, Holly Foster, Richard J. Gelles, Denise C. Gottfredson, Gary D. Gottfredson, Michael R. Gottfredson, Richard E. Heyman, James C. (Buddy) Howell, Megan Q. Howell, Li Huang, L. Rowell Huesmann, Cynthia Irvin, Gary F. Jensen, Yoshito Kawabata, Lucyna Kirwil, Jeff M. Kretschmar, Robert F. Krueger, Markus J. P. Kruesi, Benjamin B. Lahey, Royce Lee, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Todd D. Little, Anne Martin, Rebecca A. Matthew, Stephen C. Maxson, Jacquelyn Mize, Terrie E. Moffitt, Daniel S. Nagin, Jamie M. Ostrov, Christopher J. Patrick, Bowen Paulle, Gregory S. Pettit, Adrian Raine, Soo Hyun Rhee, Angela Scarpa, Jean R. Séguin, Michelle R. Sherrill, Mark I. Singer, Amy M. Smith Slep, Kevin J. Strom, Patrick Sylvers, Patrick H. Tolan, Elizabeth Trejos‐Castillo, Richard E. Tremblay, Manfred van Dulmen, Johan van Wilsem, Alexander T. Vazsonyi, Edelyn Verona, Frank Vitaro, Monique Vulin‐Reynolds, Irwin D. Waldman, Mark Warr, Stanley Wasserman, Deanna L. Wilkinson
- Edited by Daniel J. Flannery, Kent State University, Ohio, Alexander T. Vazsonyi, Auburn University, Alabama, Irwin D. Waldman, Emory University, Atlanta
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 03 September 2007, pp xi-xviii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation