SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Frontal cognitive function and memory in Parkinson's disease: toward a distinction between prospective and declarative memory impairments?

Behav Neurol · 1995-01-01

DOI: 10.3233/ben-1995-8201PMID: 24487423

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Memory dysfunction is a frequent concomitant of Parkinson's disease (PD). Historically, two classes of hypotheses, focusing on different cognitive mechanisms, have been advanced to explain this memory impairment: one postulating retrieval deficits (common to several neurodegenerative disorders involving the basal ganglia), and the other postulating frontally mediated executive deficits as fundamental to memory impairment. After outlining empirical support for the retrieval deficit hypothesis, research on the more recent "frontal executive deficit hypothesis" is reviewed, and major challenges to this hypothesis are identified. It is concluded that the frontal executive deficit hypothesis cannot adequately account for all memory impairments in PD, and that a more parsimonious theoretical account might invoke a distinction between prospective and declarative memory impairments. It is suggested that there may be three subgroups of PD patients: one demonstrating prospective memory dysfunction only, one with declarative memory dysfunction only, and one with both prospective and declarative memory dysfunction. Consequently, PD might provide a useful model within which to investigate the relationship between prospective and declarative memory.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.