ArticleNeuropsychology2021
Memory in multiple sclerosis: A reappraisal using the item specific deficit approach.
Article in Neuropsychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neural network process simulations support a distributed memory system and aid design of a novel computer adaptive digital memory test for preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer's disease.Neuropsychology · 2023Article
- Examining Delayed Recall in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition, and Item Specific Deficit Approach: Preliminary Results.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAs many as 65% of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) have clinically significant memory impairment, but the nature of this deficit is controversial. Some investigations suggest that an inability to retrieve newly learned information from memory is prominent, whereas others imply that compromised acquisition accounts for impairment. Prior research has not simultaneously evaluated acquisition and retrieval processes in MS, and fewer have attempted to account for initial acquisition when studying retrieval. The Item Specific Deficit Approach (ISDA) offers a method of quantifying acquisition, retrieval, and retention processes, with the latter two mechanisms being adjusted for initial acquisition. To simultaneously quantify acquisition and retrieval abilities, the ISDA was applied to list learning performance in two independent samples of people with MS and corresponding healthy comparison groups. PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsStudy 1 included 85 people with MS and 47 healthy individuals. Study 2 involved a separate sample of 79 people with MS and 22 healthy people. They were administered neuropsychological batteries, and participants with MS were classified as globally impaired or unimpaired. The California Verbal Learning Test-II was administered to assess new-learning in both studies, and responses were scored using the ISDA.
resultsBoth studies revealed that cognitively impaired people with MS manifest weaknesses involving acquisition and retrieval. Nearly identical effect sizes emerged across samples, with cognitive impairment achieving a medium effect upon acquisition and a large effect upon retrieval.
conclusionsThese findings accord well with previous research showing diminished acquisition and retrieval among people with MS. The results may also reconcile contradictory findings in the extant literature by showing that memory impairment in MS is not exclusively attributable to either acquisition or retrieval. Rather, both processes may manifest across people with MS. The replication across samples with nearly identical effect sizes implies that these effects are reliable and possess external validity. These data hold implications for memory rehabilitation interventions involving people with MS, and suggest that acquisition and retrieval processes should be addressed in treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.