Abstract

Objective: While Spencer’s verbal incidental learning (IL) task—from Vocabulary and Similarities subtests of the WAIS—has been validated relative to traditional memory measures and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, the effectiveness of the particular scoring method used has not been assessed relative to alternative scoring weightings. The purpose of this study was to compare original and alternative scoring methods of this IL task by using an AD biomarker-benchmark to arrive at an optimal approach.

Methods: Fifty-five memory-clinic patients aged 59–87 received neuropsychological assessment, measures of IL, and quantitative brain imaging. Partial correlation coefficients with total hippocampal volume—controlling for age, sex, and intracranial volume—were assessed across several IL scoring methods, and partial correlations with measures of memory were examined to evaluate convergent validity.

Results: IL scoring methods maximizing the contribution of paired-associate-recall-performance were significantly correlated with both hippocampal volumes and traditional memory measures, whereas discrimination-emphasized scoring methods were not.

Conclusions: IL scoring methods emphasizing memory paired-associate recall appeared to be preferable to those emphasizing memory discrimination. Administration of the IL- Similarities subtest alone, without IL- Vocabulary, may strike a balance between strength of relationships with both hippocampal volumes and standard memory measures, while also limiting administration time.

摘要

目标：虽然 Spencer 的语言附带学习 (IL) 任务——来自 WAIS 的词汇和相似性子测试——已经相对于传统记忆测量和阿尔茨海默病 (AD) 病理学得到验证，但所使用的特定评分方法的有效性尚未得到相对评估到替代评分权重。本研究的目的是通过使用 AD 生物标志物基准来比较此 IL 任务的原始评分方法和替代评分方法，以得出最佳方法。

方法： 55 名年龄在 59-87 岁之间的记忆诊所患者接受了神经心理学评估、IL 测量和定量脑成像。通过几种 IL 评分方法评估了与总海马体体积的偏相关系数（控制年龄、性别和颅内体积），并检查了与记忆测量的偏相关系数以评估收敛效度。

结果：最大化配对关联回忆表现的贡献的 IL 评分方法与海马体积和传统记忆测量显着相关，而强调辨别力的评分方法则没有。

结论：强调记忆配对关联回忆的 IL 评分方法似乎优于那些强调记忆辨别的方法。单独进行 IL-相似性子测试，没有 IL-词汇，可以在与海马体积和标准记忆测量的关系强度之间取得平衡，同时也限制了给药时间。