NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
IntroductionSeveral recent studies have pointed out that early impairment of executive functions (EFs) in Parkinson's Disease (PD) may be a crucial marker to detect patients at risk for developing dementia. The main objective of this study was to compare the performances of PD patients with mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) with PD patients with normal cognition (PD-NC) and a control group (CG) using a traditional assessment of EFs and the Virtual Multiple Errands Test (VMET), a virtual reality (VR)-based tool. In order to understand which subcomponents of EFs are early impaired, this experimental study aimed to investigate specifically which instrument best discriminates among these three groups.Materials and methodsThe study included three groups of 15 individuals each (for a total of 45 participants): 15 PD-NC; 15 PD-MCI, and 15 cognitively healthy individuals (CG). To assess the global neuropsychological functioning and the EFs, several tests (including the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Clock Drawing Test, and Tower of London test) were administered to the participants. The VMET was used for a more ecologically valid neuropsychological evaluation of EFs.ResultsFindings revealed significant differences in the VMET scores between the PD-NC patients vs. the controls. In particular, patients made more errors in the tasks of the VMET, and showed a poorer ability to use effective strategies to complete the tasks. This VMET result seems to be more sensitive in the early detection of executive deficits because these two groups did not differ in the traditional assessment of EFs (neuropsychological battery).ConclusionThis study offers initial evidence that a more ecologically valid evaluation of EFs is more likely to lead to detection of subtle executive deficits.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.