Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31316374›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2019

Markers of Novelty Processing in Older Adults Are Stable and Reliable.

Hura Behforuzi, Nicole C Feng, Adam R Billig, Eliza Ryan, Erich S Tusch, Phillip J Holcomb, Abdul H Mohammed, Kirk R Daffner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Hura BehforuziLaboratory of Healthy Cognitive Aging, Department of Neurology, Center for Brain/Mind Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Nicole C FengLaboratory of Healthy Cognitive Aging, Department of Neurology, Center for Brain/Mind Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Adam R BilligLaboratory of Healthy Cognitive Aging, Department of Neurology, Center for Brain/Mind Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Eliza RyanLaboratory of Healthy Cognitive Aging, Department of Neurology, Center for Brain/Mind Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Erich S TuschLaboratory of Healthy Cognitive Aging, Department of Neurology, Center for Brain/Mind Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Phillip J HolcombDepartment of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States.
Abdul H MohammedDepartment of Psychology, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.
Kirk R DaffnerLaboratory of Healthy Cognitive Aging, Department of Neurology, Center for Brain/Mind Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

The Neuro-cognition of Word ComprehensionR37HD025889 · NICHD · TUFTS UNIVERSITY MEDFORD · PI HOLCOMB, PHILLIP J · 2011 to 2020
$3.7M
NICHD NIH HHS R37 HD025889
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exploratory behavior and responsiveness to novelty play an important role in maintaining cognitive function in older adults. Inferences about age- or disease-related differences in neural and behavioral responses to novelty are most often based on results from single experimental testing sessions. There has been very limited research on whether such findings represent stable characteristics of populations studied, which is essential if investigators are to determine the result of interventions aimed at promoting exploratory behaviors or draw appropriate conclusions about differences in the processing of novelty across diverse clinical groups. The goal of the current study was to investigate the short-term test-retest reliability of event-related potential (ERP) and behavioral responses to novel stimuli in cognitively normal older adults. ERPs and viewing durations were recorded in 70 healthy older adults participating in a subject-controlled visual novelty oddball task during two sessions occurring 7 weeks apart. Mean midline P3 amplitude and latency, mean midline amplitude during successive 50 ms intervals, temporospatial factors derived from principal component analysis (PCA), and viewing duration in response to novel stimuli were measured during each session. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no reliable differences in the value of any measurements between Time 1 and 2. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between Time 1 and 2 were excellent for mean P3 amplitude (ICC = 0.86), the two temporospatial factors consistent with the P3 components (ICC of 0.88 and 0.76) and viewing duration of novel stimuli (ICC = 0.81). Reliability was only fair for P3 peak latency (ICC = 0.56). Successive 50 ms mean amplitude measures from 100 to 1,000 ms yielded fair to excellent reliabilities, and all but one of the 12 temporospatial factors identified demonstrated ICCs in the good to excellent range. We conclude that older adults demonstrate substantial stability in ERP and behavioral responses to novel visual stimuli over a 7-week period. These results suggest that older adults may have a characteristic way of processing novelty that appears resistant to transient changes in their environment or internal states, which can be indexed during a single testing session. The establishment of reliable measures of novelty processing will allow investigators to determine whether proposed interventions have an impact on this important aspect of behavior.

Indexed as

agingERPnovelty processingtest-retest reliabilityvisual modality

Identifiers

PMID31316374
PMCPMC6611344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.