A Two-Year Follow-Up Study of Remote Memory in Alzheimer's Disease

Abstract

The authors assessed long-term changes in autobiographical and public remote memory in a series of 21 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 10 age-comparable healthy comparison subjects who underwent two evaluations, with an interval ranging from 24 to 36 months. The assessment consisted of the Remote and Autobiographical Memory Scales and the Buschke Selective Reminding Test. The AD group showed a significantly greater decline on both types of remote memory than the comparison group. Alzheimer's disease patients performed significantly better on recognition than on free-recall, suggesting more severe retrieval than encoding/storage deficits. The decline in anterograde verbal memory correlated significantly with the decline in autobiographical memory, suggesting a common final pathway for both deficits.

Memory for Public Events in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease: The Importance of Rehearsal

“…Using this test, a Ribot-type temporal gradient (TG) was found in AD, with better memory for remote compared with recent periods [21,22,34]. Similarly, the same Ribot TG was obtained in AD using tests of famous people [10] or public events only; however, this temporal gradient was very slight [16,17,35], or probably due to items selection since it was found in both AD and control groups [36].…”

“…Deficits in semantic memory have been extensively documented in AD using tests of famous people [9][10][11][12][13] and public events [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Studies have also demonstrated semantic impairment in aMCI using tests requiring the identification of famous people and famous buildings [11,12,[24][25][26][27][28][29], as well as public events [15,24,27,[30][31][32].…”

L’évaluation de la mémoire rétrograde dans la population Québécoise âgée: Le PUB-40 et le PUB-12

“…En effet, les événements qui composent ces tests sont soit de type historique (Leyhe, Müller, Eschweiler, & Saur, 2010; Meeter, Eijsasckers, & Mulder, 2006; Sagar, Cohen, Sullivan, Corkin, & Growdon, 1988; Thomas-Antérion, Collomb, Borg, Nevers, etLaurent, 2006a), soit relevant de la petite histoire, c’est-à-dire n’ayant fait la une des médias que durant une courte période de temps (Imbeault, 2005; Leplow, 1997). D’ailleurs, souvent, les critères de sélection des événements ne sont tout simplement pas spécifiés par les auteurs (Bizzozero, 2005b; Bizzozero, Lucchelli, Prigione, Saetti, & Spinnler, 2004; Bizzozero, Lucchelli, Saetti, & Spinnler, 2008; Kopelman, 1989; Sartori, 2004) et certaines études vont jusqu’à combiner des items portant sur des personnes et des événements célèbres (Dorrego et al, 1999; Sadek et al, 2004; Starkstein, Boller, & Garau, 2005; Wilson, Kaszniak, & Fox, 1981). Par ailleurs, le format de présentation des stimuli (énoncés ou questions vs images ou photographies), la nature des tâches (évocation, reconnaissance, choix multiples) et l’information demandée (célèbre ou non célèbre, description sommaire ou détaillée, datation de l’événement, identification du lieu de survenue, etc.)…”