SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Modeling Working Memory in Neurodegeneration: A Focus on EEG Methods.

Diagnostics (Basel) · 2025-11-25

DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics15232992PMID: 41374372

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Working memory is one of the most vulnerable cognitive domains in neurodegenerative diseases. According to the World Health Organization, around 55 million people worldwide were living with dementia in 2021, a number projected to exceed 150 million by 2050. Impairments in working memory occur in 80-90% of patients with Alzheimer's disease, 40-60% with Parkinson's disease, and about 50% with frontotemporal dementia. These deficits include reduced information capacity, slower response times, increased errors in manipulation, and difficulties in maintaining information, making them sensitive indicators of progressive decline. This review aims to systematize current approaches to modeling working memory phenotypes using electroencephalography (EEG). It highlights experimental paradigms applied to probe working memory, methods of EEG signal processing and analysis, and the integration of machine learning and neural network models. Particular emphasis is placed on studies achieving high diagnostic accuracy, with classification rates of 85-90% when distinguishing patients with neurodegeneration from healthy participants. Limitations of existing methods, especially EEG variability, are considered. The review concludes by outlining future directions: integration of multimodal EEG data, application of artificial intelligence, and development of digital cognitive biomarkers for hybrid models capable of predicting cognitive decline and advancing clinical translation.

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.