SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Anterior Attentional-Intentional System in Patients with Parkinson's Disease-A Pilot and Feasibility Study.

Brain Sci · 2021-07-30

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11081013PMID: 34439632

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

(1) Background: This study compared anterior attentional-intentional system performance between three groups: Parkinson's disease (PD) patients with normal cognition (PD-NC), with mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI), and a comparison group (CG). It also evaluated the feasibility of the recruitment and study procedures; (2) Methods: From 45 participants recruited, 39 were allocated (mean age 65.31; 43.59% men) to PD-NC, PD-MCI and CG (13 per group). To assess attention, we used three tasks from the ROtman-Baycrest Battery for Investigating Attention: Simple Reaction time (RT), Choice RT, and Prepare RT. We conducted a mixed-model analysis of variance with a 3 (groups) × 4 (tasks) design to compare reaction times; (3) Results: PD-MCI had slower reaction times than PD-NC (p = 0.028) and the CG (p = 0.052); there was no difference between PD-NC and CG. PD-MCI might perform worse on monitoring tasks than PD-NC, Z = -1.68, p = 0.092. Nearly half the volunteers from the CG and 87% of all eligible patients were enrolled in the study and completed all neuropsychological procedures; (4) Conclusions: General cognitive decline appears related to partial deficits in energization and tends to impair attentional monitoring. Furthermore, PD-NC exhibited similar reaction times to the CG. Results from the feasibility study contributed to the definitive study.

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.