时钟绘制测试中的时间设定错误与语义和执行障碍有关。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-01-07 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2021.2023154
Matan Soffer, Ashley Melichercik, Nathan Herrmann, Christopher R Bowie, Corinne E Fischer, Alastair J Flint, Sanjeev Kumar, Krista L Lanctôt, Linda Mah, Benoit H Mulsant, Shima Ovaysikia, Bruce G Pollock, Tarek K Rajji, Meryl A Butters
{"title":"时钟绘制测试中的时间设定错误与语义和执行障碍有关。","authors":"Matan Soffer, Ashley Melichercik, Nathan Herrmann, Christopher R Bowie, Corinne E Fischer, Alastair J Flint, Sanjeev Kumar, Krista L Lanctôt, Linda Mah, Benoit H Mulsant, Shima Ovaysikia, Bruce G Pollock, Tarek K Rajji, Meryl A Butters","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2021.2023154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The common requirement to set the time to \"10 past 11\" on the Clock Drawing Test is intended to elicit a stimulus bound response (SBR), in which the responder is \"pulled\" to the salient stimulus \"10,\" resulting in hands set at \"10 before 11.\" SBRs are considered markers of executive dysfunction, although this assumption has not yet been validated. We compared SBR and other time-setting errors on inhibitory control tests, hypothesizing that they represent related constructs. The role of semantic dysfunction in the formation of those errors was also investigated. We examined baseline test performance of participants with Mild Cognitive Impairment or a history of depression, and control participants, enrolled in a dementia prevention study. Among 258 participants, we identified clocks with SBRs (<i>n</i> = 16), other time errors (<i>n</i> = 22), or no errors at all (<i>n</i> = 42). Performance between the groups with SBRs and other time-setting errors did not differ on any of the executive tests, and both error groups performed significantly worse than the No Error group on the semantic tests. Control for covariates further supported semantic and executive components in time-setting errors. Both semantic and inhibitory control deficits may underlie time representation errors in general.</p>","PeriodicalId":50741,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"360-369"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time setting errors in the Clock Drawing Test are associated with both semantic and executive deficits.\",\"authors\":\"Matan Soffer, Ashley Melichercik, Nathan Herrmann, Christopher R Bowie, Corinne E Fischer, Alastair J Flint, Sanjeev Kumar, Krista L Lanctôt, Linda Mah, Benoit H Mulsant, Shima Ovaysikia, Bruce G Pollock, Tarek K Rajji, Meryl A Butters\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2021.2023154\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The common requirement to set the time to \\\"10 past 11\\\" on the Clock Drawing Test is intended to elicit a stimulus bound response (SBR), in which the responder is \\\"pulled\\\" to the salient stimulus \\\"10,\\\" resulting in hands set at \\\"10 before 11.\\\" SBRs are considered markers of executive dysfunction, although this assumption has not yet been validated. We compared SBR and other time-setting errors on inhibitory control tests, hypothesizing that they represent related constructs. The role of semantic dysfunction in the formation of those errors was also investigated. We examined baseline test performance of participants with Mild Cognitive Impairment or a history of depression, and control participants, enrolled in a dementia prevention study. Among 258 participants, we identified clocks with SBRs (<i>n</i> = 16), other time errors (<i>n</i> = 22), or no errors at all (<i>n</i> = 42). Performance between the groups with SBRs and other time-setting errors did not differ on any of the executive tests, and both error groups performed significantly worse than the No Error group on the semantic tests. Control for covariates further supported semantic and executive components in time-setting errors. Both semantic and inhibitory control deficits may underlie time representation errors in general.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"360-369\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2021.2023154\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2021.2023154","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在时钟画图测验中,将时间设定为 "11 点过 10 分 "的常见要求旨在诱发刺激约束反应(SBR),即反应者被 "牵引 "到突出刺激 "10 "处,导致双手设定在 "11 点前 10 分"。SBR 被认为是执行功能障碍的标志,尽管这一假设尚未得到验证。我们比较了抑制控制测试中的SBR和其他时间设定错误,假设它们代表了相关的结构。我们还研究了语义功能障碍在这些错误形成中的作用。我们对参加痴呆症预防研究的轻度认知障碍或有抑郁症病史的参与者和对照组参与者的基线测试表现进行了研究。在 258 名参与者中,我们发现了有 SBRs(16 人)、其他时间错误(22 人)或完全没有错误(42 人)的时钟。在任何一项执行测试中,时间设定错误组和其他时间设定错误组的表现均无差异,而在语义测试中,两个错误组的表现均明显差于无错误组。对协变量的控制进一步支持了时间设定错误中的语义和执行成分。语义和抑制控制缺陷可能是时间表征错误的普遍原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Time setting errors in the Clock Drawing Test are associated with both semantic and executive deficits.

The common requirement to set the time to "10 past 11" on the Clock Drawing Test is intended to elicit a stimulus bound response (SBR), in which the responder is "pulled" to the salient stimulus "10," resulting in hands set at "10 before 11." SBRs are considered markers of executive dysfunction, although this assumption has not yet been validated. We compared SBR and other time-setting errors on inhibitory control tests, hypothesizing that they represent related constructs. The role of semantic dysfunction in the formation of those errors was also investigated. We examined baseline test performance of participants with Mild Cognitive Impairment or a history of depression, and control participants, enrolled in a dementia prevention study. Among 258 participants, we identified clocks with SBRs (n = 16), other time errors (n = 22), or no errors at all (n = 42). Performance between the groups with SBRs and other time-setting errors did not differ on any of the executive tests, and both error groups performed significantly worse than the No Error group on the semantic tests. Control for covariates further supported semantic and executive components in time-setting errors. Both semantic and inhibitory control deficits may underlie time representation errors in general.

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
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
自引率
11.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Perspective taking deficits and their relationship with theory of mind abilities in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Outcomes and predictors of stress among Turkish family caregivers of patients with acquired brain injury. The Moroccan MoCA test: Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation. Impact of cognition on test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of n-back for Chinese stroke patients. Ecological validity of executive function tests in predicting driving performance.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1