PubMed · 14603595
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Bill Sanders. How will they ever learn?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14603595/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This paper presents results of two studies conducted to investigate cognition in different MS subtypes. First, the results of a study that has previously been published will be discussed. This was a cross-sectional study with 108 relapsing-remitting (RR), 71 secondary progressive (SP), 55 primary progressive (PP) MS patients, and 67 healthy controls [S.C.J. Huijbregts, N.F. Kalkers, L.M.J. de Sonneville, V. de Groot, I.E.W. Reuling, C.H. Polman, Differences in cognitive impairment of relapsing-remitting, secondary and primary progressive MS. Neurology 63 (2004) 335-339]. The second study involved a follow-up assessment after 2 years and included 30 SPMS patients, 25 PPMS patients, and 33 controls. The Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-N) was used for all cognitive assessments. All patient groups demonstrated cognitive deficits compared to healthy controls. RRMS patients were less affected compared to patients with progressive MS subtypes on the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT) and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). These differences were attenuated after control for physical disability level as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale. RRMS and SPMS patients were more severely impaired than PPMS patients on the 10/36 Spatial Recall Task and Word List Generation. Results of the follow-up study indicated that both progressive MS subtypes showed a lack of improvement compared to controls on the PASAT and the SDMT, but not on the other tasks of the BRB-N, indicating that performance on tasks requiring multiple abilities concurrently, i.e. visuo-spatial ability and processing speed (SDMT) or working memory and processing speed (PASAT), is most likely to decline across time.
In the current study, participants judged as 'low' or 'high' either the location or the frequency of a single tone presented in one of two locations at one of two frequencies. The classification associated with the irrelevant feature could be either congruent or incongruent with the required response. The results of Experiment 1 revealed that responses were made more slowly on incongruent than on congruent trials, regardless of whether participants judged sounds according to their location or their pitch. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the probability that the classification associated with the irrelevant acoustic feature was consistent with the classification associated with the task-relevant dimension. In this experiment responses were made more quickly on congruent trials when the response associated with the irrelevant feature was likely to be consistent with the required response, and on incongruent trials when the response associated with the irrelevant feature was likely to be inconsistent with the required response.
BACKGROUND: Because abnormal Auditory Efferent Activity (AEA) is associated with auditory distortions during vocalization, we tested whether auditory processing is impaired during vocalization in children with Selective Mutism (SM). METHODS: Participants were children with SM and abnormal AEA, children with SM and normal AEA, and normally speaking controls, who had to detect aurally presented target words embedded within word lists under two conditions: silence (single task), and while vocalizing (dual task). To ascertain specificity of auditory-vocal deficit, effects of concurrent vocalizing were also examined during a visual task. RESULTS: Children with SM and abnormal AEA showed impaired auditory processing during vocalization relative to children with SM and normal AEA, and relative to control children. This impairment is specific to the auditory modality and does not reflect difficulties in dual task per se. CONCLUSIONS: The data extends previous findings suggesting that deficient auditory processing is involved in speech selectivity in SM.