Reduced Enhancement of Memory for Faces Encoded by Semantic and Socioemotional Processes in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease

Abstract

Objectives:Patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) exhibit impaired semantic and socioemotional processes, which are thought to be related to dysfunctions in the fronto-striatal circuit. However, little is known about how the memory enhancement by these processes was reduced in PD. The present study investigated this issue.Methods:The retrieval performance of face memories encoded by semantic and socioemotional processes was compared between 24 PD patients and 24 age-matched healthy controls (HC). During encoding, participants were presented with unfamiliar faces and made judgment about them in three encoding conditions of semantic judgment (Semantics), attractiveness judgment (Attractiveness), and form judgment (Form). In Semantics, participants rated to what degree each face looked like an office worker, whereas in Attractiveness, participants rated how attractive each face was. The Form condition as a control required participants to judge the shape of each face. During retrieval after encoding, participants made old or new judgment for target and distracter faces.Results:In HC, the retrieval of faces encoded by Semantics and Attractiveness was significantly more accurate than that encoded by Form, whereas this memory enhancement was not identified in PD. In addition, individual scores in frontal lobe function and long-term memory correlated with the retrieval performance of memories encoded in Semantics and Attractiveness but not Form.Conclusions:These findings suggest that the processing of semantic and socioemotional signals conveyed from faces could be impaired in PD and that the impairment of these processes could decrease the enhancement of face memories by semantic and socioemotional elaborations.

Computer- Assessment of Attention and Memory Utilizing Ecologically Valid Distractions: A Scoping Review

“…It is important to note that not all clinical populations are good candidates for HMDs due to increased susceptibility to simulator sickness and/or hypersensitivity to audiovisual stimuli. Computer monitor displays were utilized in thirteen studies (13/23, 57%) (Dockree et al, 2004;Knight et al, 2006;Pollak et al, 2009;Potvin et al, 2011;Schnabel and Kydd, 2012;Krch et al, 2013;Faria et al, 2016;Uitvlugt et al, 2016;Remington et al, 2019;Banire et al, 2020;Biss et al, 2020;Park et al, 2020;Pretus et al, 2020). One study (1/23, 4%) utilized a goggle system, the NordicNeuroLab goggle system for the presentation of distraction stimuli (Harrington et al, 2019).…”

“…Baseline measures for internal distractions such as simulator sickness, pain, anxiety, and fatigue were completed for eight articles (7/23, 30%) (Dockree et al, 2004;Harrington et al, 2020; Adams et al, 2009;Potvin et al, 2011;Biss et al, 2020;Kratz et al, 2020;Park et al, 2020). In the Dockree et al ( 2004) study statistically significant differences were detected in persons with TBI and healthy controls on the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) (Broadbent et al, 1982) but not on the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) (Zigmond and Snaith, 1983).…”

“…Results indicated a lack of correlation between outcome measures and questionnaires by persons with TBI, however participant results were associated with their relatives' perception of their everyday prospective memory functioning. Park et al (2020) assessed depression by the Japanese version of Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-S-J) (Yesavage et al, 1986;Sugishita et al, 2009) and results were higher for the PD group than healthy control group however scores did not statistically correlate memory encoding dysfunction. (Kratz et al, 2020).…”

“…Seven articles incorporated multiple visual distractions (7/23, 30%) (Pollak et al, 2009;Faria et al, 2016;Harrington et al, 2020;Banire et al, 2020;Biss et al, 2020;Park et al, 2020;Pretus et al, 2020). Distractions included: hand drawn animation, toys, shapes, words, faces, cars, streets, commercial buildings, and moving cars.…”

“…Working memory scores fell within the normal range for PD group, however fMRI images indicated that connectivity differences were detected (p < 0.01) (Harrington et al, 2019). In a long-term memory study Park et al (2020) analyzed persons with PD's ability to encode faces based on semantic, attractiveness, and form judgments. Relevant visual distractions included unfamiliar faces.…”