Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35987832›Full record

ArticleBrain topography2022

Deficient Novelty Detection and Encoding in Early Alzheimer's Disease: An ERP Study.

Domilė Tautvydaitė, Alexandra Adam-Darqué, Paulina Andryszak, Léa Poitrine, Radek Ptak, Giovanni B Frisoni, Armin Schnider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain topography, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic utility of electrophysiological markers for early and differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's, Frontotemporal, and Lewy Body dementias: A systematic review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Review
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

7 authors.

Domilė TautvydaitėLaboratory of Cognitive Neurorehabilitation, Division of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University Hospital of Geneva and University of Geneva, Av. de Beau-Séjour 26, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
Alexandra Adam-DarquéLaboratory of Cognitive Neurorehabilitation, Division of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University Hospital of Geneva and University of Geneva, Av. de Beau-Séjour 26, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
Paulina AndryszakLaboratory of Neuroimaging of Aging (LANVIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Léa PoitrineLaboratory of Neuroimaging of Aging (LANVIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Radek PtakLaboratory of Cognitive Neurorehabilitation, Division of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University Hospital of Geneva and University of Geneva, Av. de Beau-Séjour 26, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
Giovanni B FrisoniLaboratory of Neuroimaging of Aging (LANVIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Armin SchniderLaboratory of Cognitive Neurorehabilitation, Division of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University Hospital of Geneva and University of Geneva, Av. de Beau-Séjour 26, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland. armin.schnider@unige.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with early Alzheimer's disease (AD) have difficulty in learning new information and in detecting novel stimuli. The underlying physiological mechanisms are not well known. We investigated the electrophysiological correlates of the early (< 400 ms), automatic phase of novelty detection and encoding in AD. We used high-density EEG Queryin patients with early AD and healthy age-matched controls who performed a continuous recognition task (CRT) involving new stimuli (New), thought to provoke novelty detection and encoding, which were then repeated up to 4 consecutive times to produce over-familiarity with the stimuli. Stimuli then reappeared after 9-15 intervening items (N-back) to be re-encoded. AD patients had substantial difficulty in detecting novel stimuli and recognizing repeated ones. Main evoked potential differences between repeated and new stimuli emerged at 180-260 ms: neural source estimations in controls revealed more extended MTL activation for N-back stimuli and anterior temporal lobe activations for New stimuli compared to highly familiar repetitions. In contrast, AD patients exhibited no activation differences between the three stimulus types. In direct comparison, healthy subjects had significantly stronger MTL activation in response to New and N-back stimuli than AD patients. These results point to abnormally weak early MTL activity as a correlate of deficient novelty detection and encoding in early AD.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseEvoked PotentialsHumansLearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingRecognition, PsychologyTemporal LobeAlzheimer’s diseaseEvoked potentialsInverse solutionMedial temporal lobeMemory encodingNovelty detection

Identifiers

PMID35987832
PMCPMC9684237

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.