2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2626(02)00007-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reaction time slowing in adults with HIV: Results of a meta-analysis using brinley plots

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Post-hoc t-tests (paired or two-sample, two-tailed) revealed that the RT of switch-trials was compatible between the two groups (p>0.9), but was significantly higher than that of non-switch trials in both groups (at least p<0.033), suggesting a strong task switch cost in both groups of subjects. In contrast, the HIV-infected subjects were significantly slower than HIV-uninfected controls on non-switch trials (p<0.029), suggesting that HIV-infected subjects might be less efficient to adapt to current task demands than HIV-uninfected controls, as HIV-infected adults usually performed well under a choice task (in the absence of task switch) (Hardy & Hinkin, 2002). …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Post-hoc t-tests (paired or two-sample, two-tailed) revealed that the RT of switch-trials was compatible between the two groups (p>0.9), but was significantly higher than that of non-switch trials in both groups (at least p<0.033), suggesting a strong task switch cost in both groups of subjects. In contrast, the HIV-infected subjects were significantly slower than HIV-uninfected controls on non-switch trials (p<0.029), suggesting that HIV-infected subjects might be less efficient to adapt to current task demands than HIV-uninfected controls, as HIV-infected adults usually performed well under a choice task (in the absence of task switch) (Hardy & Hinkin, 2002). …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A non-exclusive alternative explanation is a failure to inhibit irrelevant information (Harsher et al 1999). Interestingly, the same interpretative framework has been proposed in HAND (Hardy and Hinkin 2002). In addition, psychomotor slowing has been shown to be predictive of further deterioration (Sacktor et al 1996).…”
Section: Neuropsychologymentioning
confidence: 70%
“…A Several studies have shown that individuals with HIV, as a group, exhibit poorer cognitive performance than their age-matched HIV-negative counterparts (Ettenhofer et al, 2010; Hardy & Hinkin, 2002; Hardy & Vance, 2009). The affected cognitive domains include psychomotor abilities, attention, speed of processing, executive functioning, and memory, all of which reflect dysfunction of frontal-subcortical brain circuitry (Lojek & Bornstein, 2005; Murji et al, 2003; Navia, Jordan, & Price, 1986; Reger, Welsh, Razani, Martin, & Boone, 2002; van Gorp et al, 1993).…”
Section: Hiv and Cognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These cognitive declines mirror the declines seen in normal aging (Craik & Salthouse, 2000) and are particularly relevant as these abilities underlie performance of many necessary everyday activities, such as medication management and driving (Hinkin et al, 2004; Marcotte et al, 2004). The hallmark cognitive impairment is a general slowing in performing cognitive tasks, with those with HIV performing poorer on cognitive tests that include a speeded/timed component (Hardy & Hinkin 2002; Reger et al). While speed of processing deficits (either frank or subclinical) may be a common symptom of cognitive sequelae in HIV that may be detected on neuropsychological tests, when individuals with HIV are queried about subjective cognitive complaints, many typically report memory problems, as these are more noticeable in interfering with daily functioning (Vance et al, in press; Wilson & Moffat, 1984).…”
Section: Hiv and Cognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%