Patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia exhibit high rates of memory distortions in addition to their impairments in episodic memory. Several investigations have demonstrated that when healthy individuals (young and old) engaged in an encoding strategy that emphasized the uniqueness of study items (an item-specific encoding strategy), they were able to improve their discrimination between old items and unstudied critical lure items in a false memory task. In the present study we examined if patients with AD could also improve their memory discrimination when engaging in an item-specific encoding strategy. Healthy older adult controls, patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD, and patients with mild AD dementia were asked to study lists of categorized words. In the Item-Specific condition, participants were asked to provide a unique detail or personal experience with each study item. In the Relational condition, they were asked to determine how each item in the list was related to the others. To assess the influence of both strategies, recall and recognition memory tests were administered. Overall, both patient groups exhibited poorer memory in both recall and recognition tests compared to controls. In terms of recognition, healthy older controls and patients with MCI due to AD exhibited improved memory discrimination in the Item-Specific condition compared to the Relational condition, whereas patients with AD dementia did not. We speculate that patients with MCI due to AD use intact frontal networks to effectively engage in this strategy.

The goal of medical educators is to teach their students in a manner that is effective for long‐term, accurate knowledge retention, but measurement of long‐term retention is difficult. Recent work by our lab has explored the use of gaze tracking to document and measure learning in medical gross anatomy students. In this study, we combine gaze tracking and EEG to examine knowledge retention by these students. Medical gross anatomy students (n=22) were asked to identify anatomical structures displayed on a computer screen immediately following the gross anatomy course and again 6 months after the course ended. In this experiment, the participants were instructed to visually fixate on the named structure of interest for more than 1 second, or to indicate uncertainty by fixating on the upper left corner of the screen. Immediately after the course ended, the students correctly fixated on the structures 70% of the time, incorrectly fixated 26.5% of the time, and indicated uncertainty 3.5% of the time. Preliminary results indicate that six months after the end of the course, the students' performance at this task had not diminished (67% correct, 26% incorrect, 7% uncertain). However, the speed with which the students made their final decision was significantly longer 6 months after the course ended. The average time it took to identify the structure was 2.22s immediately after the course and 3.0s at the 6 month follow up (p<0.001). These results indicate that 6 months after the end of the course, the subjects have solid knowledge retention but require more time to think before answering correctly. EEG data indicating subject recollection and familiarity with this material will also be reported.

The science of learning and memory has been well studied in laboratory environments, but fewer investigations have applied these principles into educational practice. The current study uses event‐related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the memorial processes used by students during retrieval of content learned in the classroom. ERPs are measured using electroencephalography, a non‐invasive method used to measure brain responses to stimuli. Numerous ERP correlates reflecting various cognitive processes have been identified, including the memorial components of familiarity and recollection. Thirty‐one students from a gross anatomy course completed a computer‐based memory task prior to the course (time point 1), after the completion of the course (time point 2) and 6 months later (time point 3). Students were presented with anatomical terms from the course and were asked to respond as to whether they “Can Define”, are “Familiar” or “Don't Know” each term. Preliminary ERP data from both time points 2 and 3 revealed that “Can Define” and “Familiar” responses elicited a frontal effect 300‐500 ms post‐stimulus, thought to reflect a familiarity process. A late parietal component, 500‐800 ms post‐stimulus, reflecting recollection of specific details, was also elicited for “Can Define” responses. These results suggest that basic memorial mechanisms may be predictive of student retention of course content and may be useful in assessing the effectiveness of teaching and learning strategies.

No abstract