ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports2024
A Comparative Evaluation of Error Processing Performance and its Relationship with Cognitive Function in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease, Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Normal Controls Using the Event-Related Potentials.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Some pathological changes occur in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) prior to the onset of clinical symptoms. Objective: In the present study, we aimed to investigate the potential of event-related potential (ERP) components in error processing performance as a neuromarker of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and transition to AD and their relation with cognitive functions. Methods: We conducted an evaluation of 16 patients diagnosed with AD, 16 patients with MCI, and 15 normal controls using three subtests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Testing Automated Battery (CANTAB). The ERP components of error processing were extracted and compared among the three groups using a modified version of the Eriksen flanker task. Additionally, we assessed the correlation between the cognitive results and the ERP components. Results: Significant differences were observed among the three groups in terms of providing correct responses following errors and the amplitude of error-related negativity (ERN). These differences were also significant between all paired groups. Regarding other ERP components of error processing and the peak latency of ERN, no significant differences were observed among the three groups. The findings revealed that the spatial working memory and new learning were correlated with the amplitude of ERN. Conclusions: In the context of error processing performance, both the accuracy of responses following an error and the amplitude of ERN can be considered as indicators of MCI and its progression to AD. The present findings do not support the use of other error processing components as differential markers in the three groups.
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.