1991
DOI: 10.1002/gps.930060806
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Further evidence of preserved memory function in Alzheimer's disease

Abstract: SUMMARYMemory performance of elderly patients in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (DAT) was compared with that of elderly control subjects. In explicit tests of recognition memory, which involve conscious recollection, the DAT patients were grossly impaired. In implicit tests of anagram solution and wordstem completion, which do not require conscious recollection, the DAT patients were not impaired. These findings further support the idea that a separate memory system, episodic memory, underlies conscio… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2002
2002

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
(17 reference statements)
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This theory explains the finding that category exemplar generation is intact in AD when study-and test-phase operations are identical but not when they are mismatched (Maki & Knopman, 1996). Although this is a viable explanation for this result, the theory cannot explain the numerous examples of normal AD priming following unmatched study-and test-phase operations (e.g., Abbenhuis et al, 1990;Balota & Ferraro, 1996;Christensen et al, 1992;Fennema-Notestine et al, 1994;Perfect et al, 1992;Russo & Spinnler, 1994;Scott et al, 1991). For example, normal priming has been demonstrated after words were read silently in the study phase and stems of words were completed in the test phase (e.g., Deweer et al, 1994) and when words were generated in the study phase and identified in brief presentations in the test phase (Fleischman et al, 1995).…”
Section: Hyperspecificity Of Processing Operationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This theory explains the finding that category exemplar generation is intact in AD when study-and test-phase operations are identical but not when they are mismatched (Maki & Knopman, 1996). Although this is a viable explanation for this result, the theory cannot explain the numerous examples of normal AD priming following unmatched study-and test-phase operations (e.g., Abbenhuis et al, 1990;Balota & Ferraro, 1996;Christensen et al, 1992;Fennema-Notestine et al, 1994;Perfect et al, 1992;Russo & Spinnler, 1994;Scott et al, 1991). For example, normal priming has been demonstrated after words were read silently in the study phase and stems of words were completed in the test phase (e.g., Deweer et al, 1994) and when words were generated in the study phase and identified in brief presentations in the test phase (Fleischman et al, 1995).…”
Section: Hyperspecificity Of Processing Operationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of this lack of conscious recollection of the training itself, SRT is thought to engage implicit or unconscious memory processes, 38 which are considered relatively preserved in AD. 26,39 An advantage of SRT is that it can be nested in other tasks, such as having a conversation or reminiscing. Further, SRT is highly flexible because the target response being trained can be verbal, as in answering questions or recalling information, or nonverbal, as in demonstrating a safety precaution or a compensatory swallow technique.…”
Section: Repeated Exposure: Spaced Retrieval Trainingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First observations revealed a preservation of perceptual priming in AD (Moscovitch, 1982;Ober & Shenaut, 1988) but Salmon & Heindel (1992) observed a deficit in lexical priming and suggested that this deficit could be an early signature of the disease. With the aid of stem completion tests, many studies have confirmed the perturbation of priming in AD (Shimamura et al 1987 ;Salmon et al 1988 ;Heindel et al 1989;Bondi & Kasniak, 1991 ;Keane et al 1991 ;Scott et al 1991 ;Gabrieli et al 1994;Downes et al 1996;Heindel et al 1997 ;Carlesimo et al 1999). Moreover, these data suggest that conceptual priming is altered (Brandt et al 1988 ;Huff et al 1988 ;Salmon et al 1988 ;Grober et al 1992;Monti et al 1996 ;Carlesimo et al 1999), whereas perceptual priming seems to be preserved (Keane et al 1991(Keane et al , 1994Fleishman et al 1995 ;Koivisto et al 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%