August M Price, Rocco Palumbo, Anna Marin, Prayerna Uppal, Cheongmin Suh, Andrew E Budson, Katherine W Turk
{"title":"利用事件相关电位区分真实痴呆和假装痴呆。","authors":"August M Price, Rocco Palumbo, Anna Marin, Prayerna Uppal, Cheongmin Suh, Andrew E Budson, Katherine W Turk","doi":"10.1097/WNN.0000000000000311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals with probable Alzheimer disease (AD) may perform below cutoffs on traditional, memory-based performance validity tests. Previous studies have found success using event-related potentials (ERPs) to detect feigned neurocognitive impairment in younger populations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the utility of an auditory oddball task in conjunction with the P3b peak amplitude to distinguish probable AD from simulated dementia.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty individuals with probable AD and 20 older healthy controls (HC) underwent an ERP auditory oddball protocol and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). The HC were asked to perform honestly for one condition and to simulate dementia for the other. The individuals with probable AD were asked to perform honestly. The P3b peak amplitude and button press accuracy were collected from each participant and were analyzed to determine their effectiveness in detecting performance validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The P3b peak amplitude remained stable regardless of behavioral condition in the HC group. When combined with the TOMM Trial 2 score, the P3b peak amplitude further improved the ability to correctly differentiate individuals with probable AD from HC simulating dementia with 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The P3b peak amplitude was found to be an effective physiologic measure of cognitive impairment in individuals with probable AD compared with HC simulating dementia. When combined with the TOMM Trial 2 score, the P3b peak amplitude served as a promising performance validity measure for differentiating individuals with probable AD from HC simulating dementia.</p>","PeriodicalId":50671,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444996/pdf/nihms-1813003.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distinguishing Between Genuine and Feigned Dementia Using Event-related Potentials.\",\"authors\":\"August M Price, Rocco Palumbo, Anna Marin, Prayerna Uppal, Cheongmin Suh, Andrew E Budson, Katherine W Turk\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/WNN.0000000000000311\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals with probable Alzheimer disease (AD) may perform below cutoffs on traditional, memory-based performance validity tests. Previous studies have found success using event-related potentials (ERPs) to detect feigned neurocognitive impairment in younger populations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the utility of an auditory oddball task in conjunction with the P3b peak amplitude to distinguish probable AD from simulated dementia.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty individuals with probable AD and 20 older healthy controls (HC) underwent an ERP auditory oddball protocol and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). The HC were asked to perform honestly for one condition and to simulate dementia for the other. The individuals with probable AD were asked to perform honestly. The P3b peak amplitude and button press accuracy were collected from each participant and were analyzed to determine their effectiveness in detecting performance validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The P3b peak amplitude remained stable regardless of behavioral condition in the HC group. When combined with the TOMM Trial 2 score, the P3b peak amplitude further improved the ability to correctly differentiate individuals with probable AD from HC simulating dementia with 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The P3b peak amplitude was found to be an effective physiologic measure of cognitive impairment in individuals with probable AD compared with HC simulating dementia. When combined with the TOMM Trial 2 score, the P3b peak amplitude served as a promising performance validity measure for differentiating individuals with probable AD from HC simulating dementia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444996/pdf/nihms-1813003.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0000000000000311\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0000000000000311","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Distinguishing Between Genuine and Feigned Dementia Using Event-related Potentials.
Background: Individuals with probable Alzheimer disease (AD) may perform below cutoffs on traditional, memory-based performance validity tests. Previous studies have found success using event-related potentials (ERPs) to detect feigned neurocognitive impairment in younger populations.
Objective: To evaluate the utility of an auditory oddball task in conjunction with the P3b peak amplitude to distinguish probable AD from simulated dementia.
Method: Twenty individuals with probable AD and 20 older healthy controls (HC) underwent an ERP auditory oddball protocol and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). The HC were asked to perform honestly for one condition and to simulate dementia for the other. The individuals with probable AD were asked to perform honestly. The P3b peak amplitude and button press accuracy were collected from each participant and were analyzed to determine their effectiveness in detecting performance validity.
Results: The P3b peak amplitude remained stable regardless of behavioral condition in the HC group. When combined with the TOMM Trial 2 score, the P3b peak amplitude further improved the ability to correctly differentiate individuals with probable AD from HC simulating dementia with 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity.
Conclusion: The P3b peak amplitude was found to be an effective physiologic measure of cognitive impairment in individuals with probable AD compared with HC simulating dementia. When combined with the TOMM Trial 2 score, the P3b peak amplitude served as a promising performance validity measure for differentiating individuals with probable AD from HC simulating dementia.
期刊介绍：
Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology (CBN) is a forum for advances in the neurologic understanding and possible treatment of human disorders that affect thinking, learning, memory, communication, and behavior. As an incubator for innovations in these fields, CBN helps transform theory into practice. The journal serves clinical research, patient care, education, and professional advancement.
The journal welcomes contributions from neurology, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry, and other relevant fields. The editors particularly encourage review articles (including reviews of clinical practice), experimental and observational case reports, instructional articles for interested students and professionals in other fields, and innovative articles that do not fit neatly into any category. Also welcome are therapeutic trials and other experimental and observational studies, brief reports, first-person accounts of neurologic experiences, position papers, hypotheses, opinion papers, commentaries, historical perspectives, and book reviews.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
