2017
DOI: 10.1590/1980-57642016dn11-030007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Memory specificity training can improve working and prospective memory in amnestic mild cognitive impairment

Abstract: Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is one of the cognitive profiles of aging.OBJECTIVE:In this study, Memory Specificity Training (MEST) was used as cognitive training in patients with amnestic MCI to understand the effectiveness of the intervention on memory dimensions.METHODS:Twenty patients that met the criteria for amnestic MCI were selected and randomly assigned to experimental (n=10) or control (n=10) groups. The experimental group received five sessions of training on memory specificity while the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Since the initial study, the MEST protocol has been implemented in multiple studies that, in general, are more methodologically sound due to the inclusion of a control group: individuals with depression, including adults (Eigenhuis et al, 2017;Sadat Zia et al, 2021) and adolescents (Neshat-Doost et al, 2013;Werner-Seidler et al, 2018); war veterans with PTSD (Moradi et al, 2014); oncology patients with PTSD (Farahimanesh et al, 2020;Farahimanesh et al, 2021); and individuals with mild amnesiac cognitive impairment (Emsaki et al, 2017). These studies follow the MEST original protocol, but few studies utilised five sessions (i.e., Emsaki et al, 2017;Neshat-Doost et al, 2013;Werner-Seidler et al, 2018). A meta-analysis by Barry et al (2019), suggests that MEST is associated with a significant post-intervention improvement of depressive symptoms (d=0.47) and, in particular, of autobiographical memory specificity (d=−1.21).…”
Section: Memory Specificity Training (Mest)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the initial study, the MEST protocol has been implemented in multiple studies that, in general, are more methodologically sound due to the inclusion of a control group: individuals with depression, including adults (Eigenhuis et al, 2017;Sadat Zia et al, 2021) and adolescents (Neshat-Doost et al, 2013;Werner-Seidler et al, 2018); war veterans with PTSD (Moradi et al, 2014); oncology patients with PTSD (Farahimanesh et al, 2020;Farahimanesh et al, 2021); and individuals with mild amnesiac cognitive impairment (Emsaki et al, 2017). These studies follow the MEST original protocol, but few studies utilised five sessions (i.e., Emsaki et al, 2017;Neshat-Doost et al, 2013;Werner-Seidler et al, 2018). A meta-analysis by Barry et al (2019), suggests that MEST is associated with a significant post-intervention improvement of depressive symptoms (d=0.47) and, in particular, of autobiographical memory specificity (d=−1.21).…”
Section: Memory Specificity Training (Mest)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies were included in the review if they involved a training protocol for enhancing the specificity of autobiographical memory amongst participants and where there was an assessment of change in the symptoms of emotional disorders. Studies were not included in this review if they involved memory training amongst participants characterised by cognitive impairments (Emsaki, NeshatDoost, Tavakoli, & Barekatain, 2017). To ensure that no studies were missed a search of the PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and MEDLINE databases was undertaken, using the terms 'memory specific* training' and 'specific* training'.…”
Section: Review Strategy Inclusion Criteria and Data Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the studies (23/48) used a mixed design (i.e., both cross-sectional and longitudinal), 21/48 studies applied a cross-sectional design, and 4/48 studies applied a longitudinal design. Eleven studies involved at least one follow-up assessment after the PM training (Andrewes et al, 1996 ; Burkard et al, 2014a ; Emsaki et al, 2017 ; Farzin et al, 2018 ; Insel et al, 2016 ; Kinsella et al, 2009 , 2016 ; Lee et al, 2013 ; Schmidt et al, 1999 , 2001 ; Troyer et al, 2008 ). The follow-up length ranged from four weeks to six months ( M = 3.27 months, SD = 1.39).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This review aims to address the above research gaps. First, previous studies have revealed mixed findings regarding long-term training efficacies (Emsaki et al, 2017 ; Insel et al, 2016 ; Kinsella et al, 2009 ; Lee et al, 2013 ). For example, PM training regimes such as memory intervention (Kinsella et al, 2009 ) have been shown to improve PM when assessed at post-test and 4-month follow-up.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%