We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Maintaining attention underlies many aspects of cognition and becomes compromised early in neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The consistency of maintaining attention can be measured with reaction time (RT) variability. Previous work has focused on measuring such fluctuations during in-clinic testing, but recent developments in remote, smartphone-based cognitive assessments can allow one to test if these fluctuations in attention are evident in naturalistic settings and if they are sensitive to traditional clinical and cognitive markers of AD.
Method:
Three hundred and seventy older adults (aged 75.8 +/− 5.8 years) completed a week of remote daily testing on the Ambulatory Research in Cognition (ARC) smartphone platform and also completed clinical, genetic, and conventional in-clinic cognitive assessments. RT variability was assessed in a brief (20-40 seconds) processing speed task using two different measures of variability, the Coefficient of Variation (CoV) and the Root Mean Squared Successive Difference (RMSSD) of RTs on correct trials.
Results:
Symptomatic participants showed greater variability compared to cognitively normal participants. When restricted to cognitively normal participants, APOE ε4 carriers exhibited greater variability than noncarriers. Both CoV and RMSSD showed significant, and similar, correlations with several in-clinic cognitive composites. Finally, both RT variability measures significantly mediated the relationship between APOE ε4 status and several in-clinic cognition composites.
Conclusions:
Attentional fluctuations over 20–40 seconds assessed in daily life, are sensitive to clinical status and genetic risk for AD. RT variability appears to be an important predictor of cognitive deficits during the preclinical disease stage.
Subtle changes in memory, attention, and spatial navigation abilities have been associated with preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD). The current study examined whether baseline AD biomarkers are associated with self- and informant-reported decline in memory, attention, and spatial navigation.
Method:
Clinically normal (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR®) = 0) adults aged 56–93 (N = 320) and their informants completed the memory, divided attention, and visuospatial abilities (which assesses spatial navigation) subsections of the Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog) annually for an average of 4 years. Biomarker data was collected within (±) 2 years of baseline (i.e., cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) p-tau181/Aβ42 ratio and hippocampal volume). Clinical progression was defined as CDR > 0 at time of final available ECog.
Results:
Self- and informant-reported memory, attention, and spatial navigation significantly declined over time (ps < .001). Baseline AD biomarkers were significantly associated with self- and informant-reported decline in cognitive ability (ps < .030), with the exception of p-tau181/Aβ42 ratio and self-reported attention (p = .364). Clinical progression did not significantly moderate the relationship between AD biomarkers and decline in self- or informant-reported cognitive ability (ps > .062). Post-hoc analyses indicated that biomarker burden was also associated with self- and informant-reported decline in total ECog (ps < .002), and again clinical progression did not significantly moderate these relationships (ps > .299).
Conclusions:
AD biomarkers at baseline may indicate risk of decline in self- and informant-reported change in memory, attention, and spatial navigation ability. As such, subjectively reported decline in these domains may have clinical utility in tracking the subtle cognitive changes associated with the earliest stages of AD.
Preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD) has been associated with subtle changes in memory, attention, and spatial navigation abilities. The current study examined whether self- and informant-reported domain-specific cognitive changes are sensitive to AD-associated biomarkers.
Method:
Clinically normal adults aged 56–93 and their informants completed the memory, divided attention, and visuospatial abilities (which assesses spatial navigation) subsections of the Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog). Reliability and validity of these subsections were examined using Cronbach’s alpha and confirmatory factor analysis. Logistic regression was used to examine the ability of ECog subsections to predict AD-related biomarkers (cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) ptau181/Aβ42 ratio (N = 371) or hippocampal volume (N = 313)). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to examine whether the self-reported subsections continued to predict biomarkers when controlling for depressive symptomatology if available (N = 197). Additionally, logistic regression was used to examine the ability of neuropsychological composites assessing the same or similar cognitive domains as the subsections (memory, executive function, and visuospatial abilities) to predict biomarkers to allow for comparison of the predictive ability of subjective and objective measures.
Results:
All subsections demonstrated appropriate reliability and validity. Self-reported memory (with outliers removed) was the only significant predictor of AD biomarker positivity (i.e., CSF ptau181/Aβ42 ratio; p = .018) but was not significant when examined in the subsample with depressive symptomatology available (p = .517). Self-reported memory (with outliers removed) was a significant predictor of CSF ptau181/Aβ42 ratio biomarker positivity when the objective memory composite was included in the model.
Conclusions:
ECog subsections were not robust predictors of AD biomarker positivity.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.