Feature priming in visual search does not depend on the dimensional context

Visual search is speeded when the target-defining property (a feature- or dimension difference relative to the distractors) is repeated relative to when it changes, a phenomenon referred to as intertrial priming. Feature priming is usually weaker than dimension priming, and sometimes even absent. Four experiments tested the hypothesis that feature priming effects are especially weakened when the visual search task also involves dimension changes, the idea being that feature changes become less salient or less relevant relative to the bigger dimension changes. Feature changes were embedded in blocks that only contained feature changes, or in blocks that also carried dimension changes. However, regardless of type of search task, and level of display ambiguity, the dimensional context had little to no effect on the magnitude of feature priming. There were only reliable effects of ambiguity, in line with recent proposals (Meeter & Olivers, 2006)

Intertrial priming stemming from ambiguity: A new account of priming in visual search.

Sequential effects are ubiquitous in experimental psychology. Within visual search, performance is often speeded when participants search for the same target twice in a row, as opposed to two different targets. Here, we investigate such intertrial priming. Two experiments show that factors influencing search processes affect the presence and size of intertrial priming: It is larger when there are fewer elements in the visual display, and larger when there is a salient distractor present than when the target is the only salient element in the display. A control experiment showed that these increased priming effects were not due to longer baseline RTs. These findings, it is argued, are inconsistent with theories that explain intertrial priming as resulting from either only faster visual selection, or from episodic retrieval of responses. Instead, we propose that ambiguity in the stimulus or task underlies the occurrence of intertrial priming. © 2006 Psychology Press Ltd

Reminiscence bump in memory for public events

People tend to recall more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than from other lifetime periods. Most evidence suggests that differential encoding causes this reminiscence bump. However, the question why personal events are encoded better in those periods is still unanswered. To shed more light on this discussion, we examined memory for public events. Since it is often impossible to ascertain that queried events are equally difficult, we circumvented the issue of equivalence by calculating deviation scores for each trial. We found that participants more frequently answered questions correctly about events that occurred in the period in which they were between 10 and 25 years old. Furthermore, we found that the reminiscence bump was more pronounced for cued recall than for recognition. We argue that these results support the biological account that events are stored better, because the memory system is working more efficiently during adolescence and early adulthood. These results do not falsify the other accounts for differential encoding, because they are not mutually exclusive. People speak of autobiographical memory when they are referring to the memories they have of their own life experiences (Robinson, 1986). Autobiographical memory does not only consist of personal memories that are remembered vividly, but also of autobiographical facts (Brewer, 1986). Some researchers have examined the contents of autobiographical memories (e.g., Fitzgerald, 1988; Niedźwieńska, 2003; Robinson, 1976), whereas other researchers have focused on the temporal distribution of memories of personal events across the lifespan (e.g., Janssen, Chessa, &amp

Clinical Value of Longitudinal Serum Neurofilament Light Chain in Prodromal Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Elevated serum neurofilament light chain (NfL) is used to identify carriers of genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD) pathogenic variants approaching prodromal conversion. Yet, the magnitude and timeline of NfL increase are still unclear. Here, we investigated the predictive and early diagnostic value of longitudinal serum NfL for the prodromal conversion in genetic FTD. METHODS: In a longitudinal observational cohort study of genetic FTD pathogenic variant carriers, we examined the diagnostic accuracy and conversion risk associated with cross-sectional and longitudinal NfL. Time periods relative to prodromal conversion (&gt;3, 3-1.5, 1.5-0 years before; 0-1.5 years after) were compared with values of participants who did not convert. Next, we modeled longitudinal NfL and MRI volume trajectories to determine their timeline.RESULTS: We included 21 participants who converted (5 chromosome 9 open-reading frame 72 [C9orf72], 10 progranulin [GRN], 5 microtubule-associated protein tau [MAPT], and 1 TAR DNA-binding protein [TARDBP]) and 61 who did not (20 C9orf72, 30 GRN, and 11 MAPT). Participants who converted had higher NfL levels at all examined periods before prodromal conversion (median values 14.0-18.2 pg/mL; betas = 0.4-0.7, standard error [SE] = 0.1, p &lt; 0.046) than those who did not (6.5 pg/mL) and showed further increase 0-1.5 years after conversion (28.4 pg/mL; beta = 1.0, SE = 0.1, p &lt; 0.001). Annualized longitudinal NfL change was only significantly higher in participants who converted (vs. participants who did not) 0-1.5 years after conversion (beta = 1.2, SE = 0.3, p = 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy of cross-sectional NfL for prodromal conversion (vs. nonconversion) was good-to-excellent at time periods before conversion (area under the curve range: 0.72-0.92), improved 0-1.5 years after conversion (0.94-0.97), and outperformed annualized longitudinal change (0.76-0.84). NfL increase in participants who converted occurred earlier than frontotemporal MRI volume change and differed by genetic group and clinical phenotypes. Higher NfL corresponded to increased conversion risk (hazard ratio: cross-sectional = 6.7 [95% CI 3.3-13.7]; longitudinal = 13.0 [95% CI 4.0-42.8]; p &lt; 0.001), but conversion-free follow-up time varied greatly across participants. DISCUSSION: NfL increase discriminates individuals who convert to prodromal FTD from those who do not, preceding significant frontotemporal MRI volume loss. However, NfL alone is limited in predicting the exact timing of prodromal conversion. NfL levels also vary depending on underlying variant-carrying genes and clinical phenotypes. These findings help to guide participant recruitment for clinical trials targeting prodromal genetic FTD.</p

Longitudinal cognitive biomarkers predicting symptom onset in presymptomatic frontotemporal dementia

Introduction: We performed 4-year follow-up neuropsychological assessment to investigate cognitive decline and the prognostic abilities from presymptomatic to symptomatic familial frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Methods: Presymptomatic MAPT (n = 15) and GRN mutation carriers (n = 31), and healthy controls (n = 39) underwent neuropsychological assessment every 2 years. Eight mutation carriers (5 MAPT, 3 GRN) became symptomatic. We investigated cognitive decline with multilevel regression modeling; the prognostic performance was assessed with ROC analyses and stepwise logistic regression. Results: MAPT converters declined on language, attention, executive function, social cognition, and memory, and GRN converters declined on attention and executive function (p < 0.05). Cognitive decline in ScreeLing phonology (p = 0.046) and letter fluency (p = 0.046) were predictive for conversion to non-fluent variant PPA, and decline on categorical fluency (p = 0.025) for an underlying MAPT mutation. Discussion: Using longitudinal neuropsychological assessment, we detected a mutation-specific pattern of cognitive decline, potentially suggesting prognostic value of neuropsychological trajectories in conversion to symptomatic FTD

Judgments of learning and improvement

Can learners accurately judge the rate of their learning? Rates of learning may be informative when study time is allocated across materials, and students' judgments of their learning rate have been proposed as a possible metacognitive tool. Participants estimated how much they improved between presentations in multitrial learning situations in which n-gram paragraphs (in Experiments 1 and 2) or word pairs (Experiments 3 and 4) were learned . In the first experiment, participants rated improvement on a percentage scale, whereas on the second and third, judgments were given on a 0–6 scale. Experiment 4 used both a percentage scale and an absolute number scale. The main result was that judgments of improvement were poorly correlated with actual improvement and, in one case, were negatively correlated. Although judgments of improvement were correlated with changes in judgments of learning, they were not reliable indicators of actual improvement. Implications are discussed for theoretical work on metacognition

Correction to: Cognitive profiles discriminate between genetic variants of behavioral frontotemporal dementia

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The presentation of Table 1 was incorrect. The original article has been corrected. The corrected Table 1 is given below. (Table presented.)

Cognitive profiles discriminate between genetic variants of behavioral frontotemporal dementia

Introduction: Trials to test disease-modifying treatments for frontotemporal dementia are eagerly awaited and sensitive instruments to assess potential treatment effects are increasingly urgent, yet lacking thus far. We aimed to identify gene-specific instruments assessing clinical onset and disease progression by comparing cognitive functioning between bvFTD patients across genetic mutations. Methods: We examined differences in 7 cognitive domains between bvFTD patients with GRN (n = 20), MAPT (n = 29) or C9orf72 (n = 31) mutations, and non-carriers (n = 24), and describe

Correction to: Cognitive profiles discriminate between genetic variants of behavioral frontotemporal dementia

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The presentation of Table 1 was incorrect. The original article has been corrected. The corrected Table 1 is given below. (Table presented.)