5 results
4 Comparing Learning Process Variables to Memory Performance and Salivary Cortisol: Is Gender a Moderator of Relationships?
- Kendra Pizzonia, Kathi Heffner, Taylor Lambertus, Julie Suhr
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 862-863
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Learning process variables such as the serial position effect and learning ratio (LR) are predictive of cognitive decline and dementia. Gender differences on memory measures are well documented, but there is inconsistent evidence for gender effects on learning process variables. In the present study, we examined the relationship of serial position and LR to memory performance and to cortisol levels, considering gender as a potential moderator.
Participants and Methods:Data were taken from a deidentified dataset of a study on stress and aging in which 123 healthy community-dwelling adults over age 50 completed various assessments. Our analyses included 100 participants (56% female, 93% white, Mage 60.65, Meducation 15.22 years) who completed all measures of interest. LR, primacy effect, and recency effect were calculated from the learning trials of the Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT). Additional memory measures included recall measures from the AVLT and from the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). AUC cortisol was calculated from salivary cortisol samples taken across 6 time points in the study.
Results:Women performed better than men on LR, primacy, and traditional memory measures (ps=<.001 to .018) but not on recency (p=.40). LR was moderately correlated with primacy (r=.481, p<.001) and weakly correlated with recency (r=.271, p=.008), after controlling for age, gender, and education. After controlling for age, gender, and education, better LR was related to better memory performance across all measures (rs=.276-.693, ps= <.001-.007) and better recency was related to better performance on all memory measures (rs=.212-.396, ps=<.001-.038). Better primacy was related to better AVLT immediate and delayed recall and RBANS Immediate Memory Index (rs=.326-.532, p<.001) but not RBANS delayed (r=.115, p=.263).
Hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to examine gender as a moderator of relationships between learning process variables and memory performance, after accounting for age, gender, and education. There were no gender by LR (ps=.349-.830) or gender by primacy interactions (ps=.124-.671). There was an interaction between gender and recency on AVLT memory measures (ps=.006-.022), but not on RBANS measures (ps=.076-.745). For men, higher recency was related to higher AVLT immediate and delayed recall (rs=.501-.541, ps<.001), but not for women (rs=.-.029-.020, ps=.839-.888), after controlling for age and education. The relationship of AUC salivary cortisol to learning process measures was also moderated by gender (LR/gender interaction p=.055; primacy/gender interaction p=.047; but not recency/gender p=.79). Interestingly, for women, higher cortisol was related to higher LR (r=.16) and higher primacy (r=.36), while for men, it was related to lower LR (r=-.22) and not to primacy (r=-.05). Cortisol was not related to recency (rs=-.04 to -.07).
Conclusions:Women performed better on LR and primacy, as well as on other traditional memory variables, but gender did not appear to differentially impact the relationship of LR or primacy to memory outcomes. Findings suggest some differential relationships of recency to memory outcomes by gender. Results also suggested potential gender differences in the relationship of cortisol to learning process variables, but further study is necessary, especially with samples of individuals with memory impairment.
3 Relation of Stress and Cortisol to Primacy and Recency Performance Patterns in Older Adult Caregivers of People with Dementia
- Taylor Lambertus, Alex Woody, Anna VanMeter, Peggy Zoccola, Julie Suhr
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, p. 862
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
The serial position effect is the tendency to recall items at the beginning (primacy) and end (recency) of a word list best and middle items the worst, demonstrated by a 'U-shaped’ profile. Individuals with memory impairment often demonstrate a 'J-shaped’ profile, with a diminished primacy effect. An attenuated primacy effect could be one of the earliest indicators of cognitive decline in older adults. Chronic elevations in cortisol are related to hippocampal atrophy and decreased learning and recall. Given the rehearsal and encoding required to recall words at the beginning of a list, we hypothesized that reduced primacy would be related to higher cortisol levels, measured via hair cortisol concentration, in older adults, particularly caregivers of people with dementia (PWD), who are under increased stress.
Participants and Methods:Data were taken from a deidentified dataset of 60 community-dwelling older adults (> 50) with no evidence of dementia who participated in a larger study on memory and caregiving stress; 26 identified themselves as caregivers of PWD. The sample was 83% women and 98% White, with a mean age of 67.58 (SD=8.85) and 80% holding at least a college degree. Stress was measured with the Perceived Stress Scale. The List Learning and List Recall subtests from the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status were used to assess the serial position effect. Primacy and recency were determined by the first three and last three words on the list, respectively, and were measured for trials 1-4. Relative strength of primacy versus recency at delayed recall was also calculated such that positive scores indicate better primacy than recency and negative scores indicate worse primacy than recency (J-shaped profile). Hair samples were collected, and the first one cm of hair was used to assay hair cortisol concentration, reflecting the past month of cortisol.
Results:Caregivers were younger than non-caregivers (p<.001), but groups did not differ in gender (p=.412). Age was controlled for in all subsequent analyses. Caregivers reported more stress (p<.001), but groups were not different in hair cortisol (p=.093). On memory tasks, caregivers showed lower list learning raw scores (p=.002) and lower list recall raw score (p=.046); groups were not different in primacy learning (p=.114), but caregivers showed worse recency over learning trials (p<.001). Caregivers were not more likely to show the J-shaped serial position profile at recall (p=.285). Collapsed across groups, perceived stress was not related to cortisol (p=.124) but was related to recency (p=.001) and list learning raw (p=.004), but not list recall raw (p=.485) or primacy (p=.109). Cortisol was not related to primacy (p=.277) or recency (p=.538).
Conclusions:Contrary to predictions, caregivers were not worse on primacy but were worse on recency. Caregivers also reported more stress; collapsed across groups, stress was associated with recency performance. This may suggest that stress is related more to poor attention and short-term memory (recency) than encoding and recall related memory problems (primacy).
71 Effect of Dementia Experience on the Relationship Between Dementia Worry, Knowledge of Dementia, and Age
- Taylor D Lambertus, Matthew R Calamia, Julie A Suhr
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 375-376
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Dementia worry (DW) is anxious rumination about personal risk for dementia. Personal experience with dementia may affect DW, such that individuals with personal experience with dementia may have higher worry about developing dementia themselves. Further, dementia knowledge (DK), including what may increase one’s dementia risk as well as treatment options for dementias, may be influenced by one’s dementia experience. Prior studies have suggested that personal experience alters the relationship of age to DW; no prior studies have examined this for DK. In the present study, we examined whether DW and/or DK were differentially related to age in older adults.
Participants and Methods:Adults (≥ 50 years old; N=252) in Ohio and Louisiana completed an online survey. 94 participants reported no personal dementia experiences, and 158 participants endorsed having a biological relative with dementia. The sample ranged in age from 23 to 92 (M=65, SD=9.3), with 96% identifying as White and 76% holding advanced degrees. DW was measured with the Dementia Worry Scale. Dementia knowledge was measured with true or false questions about causes and treatments for dementia.
Results:Groups did not differ in age (p=.73), education (p=.50), or perceived SES (p=.28), but did differ in gender (p=.06). The experience group had higher dementia knowledge (p=.02). In those with biological dementia experience, lower age was related to higher dementia worry (r=-.24, p=.003) and greater dementia knowledge (r=-.18, p=.03). However, in those with no experience, age was not related to either dementia worry (r=.04) or to dementia knowledge (r=.16). Dementia worry did not relate to dementia knowledge in either group (no experience r=.03, experience r=.13).
Conclusions:Findings suggest that younger individuals who have personal experience with dementia are highly worried about personal risk for dementia, despite having higher knowledge of dementia. Further, these results demonstrate that dementia knowledge is not related to dementia worry in older individuals with or without biological dementia experience. Findings may be important for informing dementia prevention education efforts.
Declarative Learning, Priming, and Procedural Learning Performances comparing Individuals with Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults
- Liselotte De Wit, Roy P.C. Kessels, Andrea M. Kurasz, Priscilla Amofa, Sr., Deirdre O’Shea, Michael Marsiske, Melanie J. Chandler, Vitoria Piai, Taylor Lambertus, Glenn E. Smith
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue 2 / February 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 28 February 2022, pp. 113-125
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Objective:
While declarative learning is dependent on the hippocampus, procedural learning and repetition priming can operate independently from the hippocampus, making them potential targets for behavioral interventions that utilize non-declarative memory systems to compensate for the declarative learning deficits associated with hippocampal insult. Few studies have assessed procedural learning and repetition priming in individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI).
Method:This study offers an overview across declarative, conceptual repetition priming, and procedural learning tasks by providing between-group effect sizes and Bayes Factors (BFs) comparing individuals with aMCI and controls. Seventy-six individuals with aMCI and 83 cognitively unimpaired controls were assessed. We hypothesized to see the largest differences between individuals with aMCI and controls on declarative learning, followed by conceptual repetition priming, with the smallest differences on procedural learning.
Results:Consistent with our hypotheses, we found large differences between groups with supporting BFs on declarative learning. For conceptual repetition priming, we found a small-to-moderate between-group effect size and a non-conclusive BF somewhat in favor of a difference between groups. We found more variable but overall trivial differences on procedural learning tasks, with inconclusive BFs, in line with expectations.
Conclusions:The current results suggest that conceptual repetition priming does not remain intact in individuals with aMCI while procedural learning may remain intact. While additional studies are needed, our results contribute to the evidence-base that suggests that procedural learning may remain spared in aMCI and helps inform behavioral interventions that aim to utilize procedural learning in this population.
Contributors
-
- By Aakash Agarwala, Linda S. Aglio, Rae M. Allain, Paul D. Allen, Houman Amirfarzan, Yasodananda Kumar Areti, Amit Asopa, Edwin G. Avery, Patricia R. Bachiller, Angela M. Bader, Rana Badr, Sibinka Bajic, David J. Baker, Sheila R. Barnett, Rena Beckerly, Lorenzo Berra, Walter Bethune, Sascha S. Beutler, Tarun Bhalla, Edward A. Bittner, Jonathan D. Bloom, Alina V. Bodas, Lina M. Bolanos-Diaz, Ruma R. Bose, Jan Boublik, John P. Broadnax, Jason C. Brookman, Meredith R. Brooks, Roland Brusseau, Ethan O. Bryson, Linda A. Bulich, Kenji Butterfield, William R. Camann, Denise M. Chan, Theresa S. Chang, Jonathan E. Charnin, Mark Chrostowski, Fred Cobey, Adam B. Collins, Mercedes A. Concepcion, Christopher W. Connor, Bronwyn Cooper, Jeffrey B. Cooper, Martha Cordoba-Amorocho, Stephen B. Corn, Darin J. Correll, Gregory J. Crosby, Lisa J. Crossley, Deborah J. Culley, Tomas Cvrk, Michael N. D'Ambra, Michael Decker, Daniel F. Dedrick, Mark Dershwitz, Francis X. Dillon, Pradeep Dinakar, Alimorad G. Djalali, D. John Doyle, Lambertus Drop, Ian F. Dunn, Theodore E. Dushane, Sunil Eappen, Thomas Edrich, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, Jason M. Erlich, Lucinda L. Everett, Elliott S. Farber, Khaldoun Faris, Eddy M. Feliz, Massimo Ferrigno, Richard S. Field, Michael G. Fitzsimons, Hugh L. Flanagan Jr., Vladimir Formanek, Amanda A. Fox, John A. Fox, Gyorgy Frendl, Tanja S. Frey, Samuel M. Galvagno Jr., Edward R. Garcia, Jonathan D. Gates, Cosmin Gauran, Brian J. Gelfand, Simon Gelman, Alexander C. Gerhart, Peter Gerner, Omid Ghalambor, Christopher J. Gilligan, Christian D. Gonzalez, Noah E. Gordon, William B. Gormley, Thomas J. Graetz, Wendy L. Gross, Amit Gupta, James P. Hardy, Seetharaman Hariharan, Miriam Harnett, Philip M. Hartigan, Joaquim M. Havens, Bishr Haydar, Stephen O. Heard, James L. Helstrom, David L. Hepner, McCallum R. Hoyt, Robert N. Jamison, Karinne Jervis, Stephanie B. Jones, Swaminathan Karthik, Richard M. Kaufman, Shubjeet Kaur, Lee A. Kearse Jr., John C. Keel, Scott D. Kelley, Albert H. Kim, Amy L. Kim, Grace Y. Kim, Robert J. Klickovich, Robert M. Knapp, Bhavani S. Kodali, Rahul Koka, Alina Lazar, Laura H. Leduc, Stanley Leeson, Lisa R. Leffert, Scott A. LeGrand, Patricio Leyton, J. Lance Lichtor, John Lin, Alvaro A. Macias, Karan Madan, Sohail K. Mahboobi, Devi Mahendran, Christine Mai, Sayeed Malek, S. Rao Mallampati, Thomas J. Mancuso, Ramon Martin, Matthew C. Martinez, J. A. Jeevendra Martyn, Kai Matthes, Tommaso Mauri, Mary Ellen McCann, Shannon S. McKenna, Dennis J. McNicholl, Abdel-Kader Mehio, Thor C. Milland, Tonya L. K. Miller, John D. Mitchell, K. Annette Mizuguchi, Naila Moghul, David R. Moss, Ross J. Musumeci, Naveen Nathan, Ju-Mei Ng, Liem C. Nguyen, Ervant Nishanian, Martina Nowak, Ala Nozari, Michael Nurok, Arti Ori, Rafael A. Ortega, Amy J. Ortman, David Oxman, Arvind Palanisamy, Carlo Pancaro, Lisbeth Lopez Pappas, Benjamin Parish, Samuel Park, Deborah S. Pederson, Beverly K. Philip, James H. Philip, Silvia Pivi, Stephen D. Pratt, Douglas E. Raines, Stephen L. Ratcliff, James P. Rathmell, J. Taylor Reed, Elizabeth M. Rickerson, Selwyn O. Rogers Jr., Thomas M. Romanelli, William H. Rosenblatt, Carl E. Rosow, Edgar L. Ross, J. Victor Ryckman, Mônica M. Sá Rêgo, Nicholas Sadovnikoff, Warren S. Sandberg, Annette Y. Schure, B. Scott Segal, Navil F. Sethna, Swapneel K. Shah, Shaheen F. Shaikh, Fred E. Shapiro, Torin D. Shear, Prem S. Shekar, Stanton K. Shernan, Naomi Shimizu, Douglas C. Shook, Kamal K. Sikka, Pankaj K. Sikka, David A. Silver, Jeffrey H. Silverstein, Emily A. Singer, Ken Solt, Spiro G. Spanakis, Wolfgang Steudel, Matthias Stopfkuchen-Evans, Michael P. Storey, Gary R. Strichartz, Balachundhar Subramaniam, Wariya Sukhupragarn, John Summers, Shine Sun, Eswar Sundar, Sugantha Sundar, Neelakantan Sunder, Faraz Syed, Usha B. Tedrow, Nelson L. Thaemert, George P. Topulos, Lawrence C. Tsen, Richard D. Urman, Charles A. Vacanti, Francis X. Vacanti, Joshua C. Vacanti, Assia Valovska, Ivan T. Valovski, Mary Ann Vann, Susan Vassallo, Anasuya Vasudevan, Kamen V. Vlassakov, Gian Paolo Volpato, Essi M. Vulli, J. Matthias Walz, Jingping Wang, James F. Watkins, Maxwell Weinmann, Sharon L. Wetherall, Mallory Williams, Sarah H. Wiser, Zhiling Xiong, Warren M. Zapol, Jie Zhou
- Edited by Charles Vacanti, Scott Segal, Pankaj Sikka, Richard Urman
-
- Book:
- Essential Clinical Anesthesia
- Published online:
- 05 January 2012
- Print publication:
- 11 July 2011, pp xv-xxviii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation