Recent research has demonstrated that humans are able to implicitly encode and retain repeating patterns in meaningless auditory noise. Our study aimed at testing the robustness of long-term implicit recognition memory for these learned patterns. Participants performed a cyclic/non-cyclic discrimination task, during which they were presented with either 1-s cyclic noises (CNs) (the two halves of the noise were identical) or 1-s plain random noises (Ns). Among CNs and Ns presented once, target CNs were implicitly presented multiple times within a block, and implicit recognition of these target CNs was tested 4 weeks later using a similar cyclic/non-cyclic discrimination task. Furthermore, robustness of implicit recognition memory was tested by presenting participants with looped (shifting the origin) and scrambled (chopping sounds into 10− and 20-ms bits before shuffling) versions of the target CNs. We found that participants had robust implicit recognition memory for learned noise patterns after 4 weeks, right from the first presentation. Additionally, this memory was remarkably resistant to acoustic transformations, such as looping and scrambling of the sounds. Finally, implicit recognition of sounds was dependent on participant's discrimination performance during learning. Our findings suggest that meaningless temporal features as short as 10 ms can be implicitly stored in long-term auditory memory. Moreover, successful encoding and storage of such fine features may vary between participants, possibly depending on individual attention and auditory discrimination abilities.Significance Statement Meaningless auditory patterns could be implicitly encoded and stored in long-term memory.Acoustic transformations of learned meaningless patterns could be implicitly recognized after 4 weeks.Implicit long-term memories can be formed for meaningless auditory features as short as 10 ms.Successful encoding and long-term implicit recognition of meaningless patterns may strongly depend on individual attention and auditory discrimination abilities.

Introduction The projected growth of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD‐related dementia (ADRD) cases by midcentury has expanded the research field and impelled new lines of inquiry into structural and social determinants of health (S/SDOH) as fundamental drivers of disparities in AD/ADRD. Methods In this review, we employ Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory as a framework to posit how S/SDOH impact AD/ADRD risk and outcomes. Results Bronfenbrenner defined the “macrosystem” as the realm of power (structural) systems that drive S/SDOH and that are the root cause of health disparities. These root causes have been discussed little to date in relation to AD/ADRD, and thus, macrosystem influences, such as racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia, are the emphasis in this paper. Discussion Under Bronfenbrenner's macrosystem framework, we highlight key quantitative and qualitative studies linking S/SDOH with AD/ADRD, identify scientific gaps in the literature, and propose guidance for future research. Highlights Ecological systems theory links structural/social determinants to AD/ADRD. Structural/social determinants accrue and interact over the life course to impact AD/ADRD. Macrosystem is made up of societal norms, beliefs, values, and practices (e.g., laws). Most macro‐level determinants have been understudied in the AD/ADRD literature.

BackgroundThere are few clinical tools that assess decision-making under risk. Tests that characterize sensitivity and bias in decisions between prospects varying in magnitude and probability of gain may provide insights in conditions with anomalous reward-related behaviour.ObjectiveWe designed a simple test of how subjects integrate information about the magnitude and the probability of reward, which can determine discriminative thresholds and choice bias in decisions under risk.Design/MethodsTwenty subjects were required to choose between two explicitly described prospects, one with higher probability but lower magnitude of reward than the other, with the difference in expected value between the two prospects varying from 3 to 23%.ResultsSubjects showed a mean threshold sensitivity of 43% difference in expected value. Regarding choice bias, there was a ‘risk premium’ of 38%, indicating a tendency to choose higher probability over higher reward. An analysis using prospect theory showed that this risk premium is the predicted outcome of hypothesized non-linearities in the subjective perception of reward value and probability.ConclusionsThis simple test provides a robust measure of discriminative value thresholds and biases in decisions under risk. Prospect theory can also make predictions about decisions when subjective perception of reward or probability is anomalous, as may occur in populations with dopaminergic or striatal dysfunction, such as Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia.

No abstract