The literature on repetition priming in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is inconsistent, with some findings supporting spared priming while others do not. Several factors may explain these inconsistencies, including AD severity (e.g., dementia vs. Mild Cognitive Impairment; MCI) and priming paradigm-related characteristics. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a quantitative summary of repetition priming in AD. We examined the between-group standard mean difference comparing repetition priming in AD dementia or amnestic MCI (aMCI; presumably due to AD) to controls. Thirty-two studies were selected, including 590 individuals with AD dementia, 267 individuals with amnestic MCI, and 703 controls. Our results indicated that both individuals with aMCI and AD dementia perform worse on repetition priming tasks than cognitively older adults. Paradigm-related moderators suggested that the effect size between studies comparing the combined aMCI or AD dementia group to cognitively healthy older adults was the highest for paradigms that required participants to produce, rather than identify, primes during the test phase. Our results further suggested that priming in AD is impaired for both conceptual and perceptual priming tasks. Lastly, while our results suggested that priming in AD is impaired for priming tasks that require deep processing, we were unable to draw firm conclusions about whether priming is less impaired in aMCI or AD dementia for paradigms that require shallow processing.

关于阿尔茨海默病 (AD) 重复启动的文献不一致，一些研究结果支持备用启动，而另一些则不支持。有几个因素可以解释这些不一致，包括 AD 严重程度（例如，痴呆与轻度认知障碍；MCI）和启动范式相关特征。该系统评价和荟萃分析提供了 AD 中重复启动的定量总结。我们检查了比较 AD 痴呆或遗忘性 MCI（aMCI；可能是由于 AD）与对照组的重复启动的组间标准平均差异。选择了 32 项研究，包括 590 名 AD 痴呆患者、267 名失忆性 MCI 患者和 703 名对照。我们的结果表明，患有 aMCI 和 AD 痴呆的人在重复启动任务中的表现都比认知老年人差。范式相关的主持人认为，对于要求参与者在测试阶段产生而不是识别启动子的范式，将 aMCI 或 AD 痴呆组与认知健康的老年人进行比较的研究之间的效应大小是最高的。我们的研究结果进一步表明，AD 中的启动在概念和感知启动任务中都受到损害。最后，虽然我们的结果表明，对于需要深度处理的启动任务，AD 中的启动受到损害，但对于需要浅处理的范式，我们无法得出关于 aMCI 或 AD 痴呆的启动是否受到较少损害的确切结论。