Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39258597›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology2024

Evaluating practice effects across learning trials - ceiling effects or something more?

Dustin B Hammers, Shreya Bothra, Angelina Polsinelli, Liana G Apostolova, Kevin Duff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 2024. 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. 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

5 authors.

Dustin B HammersDepartment of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Shreya BothraDepartment of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Angelina PolsinelliDepartment of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Liana G ApostolovaDepartment of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Kevin DuffDepartment of Neurology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9336-2400

Funding

Research Education ComponentP30AG066518 · NIA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Zachary Beattie · 2020 to 2026
$28.6M
Enriching clinical trials requiring amyloid positivity with practice effectsR01AG055428 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DUFF, KEVIN M, HOFFMAN, JOHN M · 2017 to 2021
$3.6M
Predicting dementia with practice effectsK23AG028417 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DUFF, KEVIN M · 2007 to 2011
$707k
NIA NIH HHS K23 AG028417NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066518NIA NIH HHS R01 AG055428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPractice effects (PE) are traditionally considered improvements in performance observed resulting from repeated exposure to test materials across multiple testing sessions. While PE are commonly observed for memory tests, this effect has only been considered in summary total scores. The current objective was to consider PE in summary total scores, individual learning trials, and learning slopes.

methodOne-week PE for individual trial and learning slope performance was examined on the BVMT-R and HVLT-R in 151 cognitively intact participants and 131 participants with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) aged 65 years and older.

resultsOne-week PE were observed across all trials and summary total scores for both memory measures and diagnostic classifications, despite the potential for ceiling effects to limit improvement on retesting. PE were largest on the first trial relative to subsequent learning trials. This effect was diminished - but not eliminated - in participants with MCI. Conversely, no PE were observed for learning slope scores, which was counter to expectations and likely confounded by ceiling effects.

conclusionsPE were present across learning trials but not learning slopes, and the initial learning trial at follow-up tended to benefit most from PE relative to subsequent learning trials. Ceiling effects appeared to influence PE for learning slopes more than learning trials. These results highlight the potential diagnostic utility of PE across individual learning trials and inform how they are distributed at follow-up, while also suggesting that learning slopes may be generally stable during longitudinal assessment.

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionPractice, PsychologicalAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLearningMaleNeuropsychological TestsassessmentmemoryNeuropsychologypractice effectsReliable change

Identifiers

PMID39258597
PMCPMC11494728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.