AAD  Vol.7 No.2 , June 2018
Failure to Recover from Proactive Semantic Interference Differentiates Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and PreMCI from Normal Aging after Adjusting for Initial Learning Ability
Abstract: Background: There is increasing evidence that the failure to recover from proactive semantic interference (frPSI) may be an early cognitive marker of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, it is unclear whether frPSI effects reflect deficiencies in an individual’s initial learning capacity versus the actual inability to learn new semantically related targets. Objective: The current study was designed to adjust for learning capacity and then to examine the extent to which frPSI, proactive semantic interference (PSI) and retroactive semantic interference (RSI) effects could differentiate between older adults who were cognitively normal (CN), and those diagnosed with either Pre-Mild Cognitive Impairment (PreMCI) or amnestic MCI (aMCI). Methods: We employed the LASSI-L cognitive stress test to examine frPSI, PSI and RSI effects while simultaneously controlling for the participant’s initial learning capacity among 50 CN, 35 aMCI, and 16 PreMCI participants who received an extensive diagnostic work-up. Results: aMCI and PreMCI participants showed greater frPSI deficits (50% and 43.8% respectively) compared to only 14% of CNparticipants. PSI effects were observed for aMCI but not PreMCI participants relative to their CN counterparts. RSI failed to differentiate between any of the study groups. Conclusion: By using participants as their own controls and adjusting for overall learning and memory, it is clear that frPSI deficits occur with much greater frequency in individuals at higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and likely reflect a failure of brain compensatory mechanisms.
Cite this paper: Curiel, R. , Crocco, E. , Raffo, A. , Guinjoan, S. , Nemeroff, C. , Penate, A. , Piña, D. and Loewenstein, D. (2018) Failure to Recover from Proactive Semantic Interference Differentiates Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and PreMCI from Normal Aging after Adjusting for Initial Learning Ability. Advances in Alzheimer's Disease, 7, 50-61. doi: 10.4236/aad.2018.72004.

[1]   Stern, Y. (2009) Cognitive Reserve. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2015-2028.

[2]   Buschke, H. (2014) Rationale of the Memory Binding Test. In: Nilsson, L.-G. and Ohta, N., Eds., Dementia and Memory, Psychology Press, Hove, 55-68.

[3]   Loewenstein, D.A., Curiel, R.E., Duara, R. and Buschke, H. (2017) Novel Cognitive Paradigms for the Detection of Memory Impairment in Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.

[4]   Crocco, E., Curiel, R.E., Acevedo, A., Czaja, S.J. and Loewenstein, D.A. (2014) An Evaluation of Deficits in Semantic Cueing and Proactive and Retroactive Interference as Early Features of Alzheimer’s Disease. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22, 889-897.

[5]   Curiel, R.E., Crocco, E., Acevedo, A., Duara, R. and Agron, J. (2013) A New Scale for the Evaluation of Proactive and Retroactive Interference in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Early Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Aging Science, 1-5.

[6]   Matías-Guiu, J.A., Curiel, R.E., Rognoni, T., Valles-Salgado, M., Fernández-Matarrubia, M., Hariramani, R., Matías-Guiu, J., et al. (2017) Validation of the Spanish Version of the LASSI-L for Diagnosing Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 56, 733-742.

[7]   Loewenstein, D.A., Curiel, R.E., Wright, C., Sun, X., Alperin, N., Crocco, E., Czaja, S.J., Raffo, A., Penate, A., Melo, J., Capp, K., Gamez, M. and Duara, R. (2017) Recovery from Proactive Semantic Interference in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Normal Aging: Relationship to Atrophy in Brain Regions Vulnerable to Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 56, 1119-1126,

[8]   Loewenstein, D.A., Curiel, R.E., Greig, M.T., Bauer, R.M., Rosado, M., Bowers, D., Rodriguez, R., et al. (2016) A Novel Cognitive Stress Test for the Detection of Preclinical Alzheimer Disease: Discriminative Properties and Relation to Amyloid Load. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24, 804-813.

[9]   Morris, J.C. (1993) The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current Version and Scoring Rules. Neurology, 43, 2412-2414.

[10]   Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E. and McHugh, P.R. (1975) “Mini-Mental State”: A Practical Method for Grading the Cognitive State of Patients for the Clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.

[11]   Benedict, R.H., Schretlen, D., Groninger, L. and Brandt, J. (1998) Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised: Normative Data and Analysis of Inter-Form and Test-Retest Reliability. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 43-55.

[12]   Weintraub, S., Salmon, D., Mercaldo, N., Ferris, S., Graff-Radford, N.R., Chui, H., Peskind, E., et al. (2009) The Alzheimer’s Disease Centers’ Uniform Data Set (UDS): The Neuropsychological Test Battery. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 23, 91-101.

[13]   Ruff, R.M., Light, R.H., Parker, S.B. and Levin, H.S. (1996) Benton Controlled Oral word Association Test: Reliability and Updated Norms. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11, 329-338.

[14]   Wechsler, D. (2014) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. 4th Edition, Psychological Corporation, San Antonio.

[15]   Reitan, R.M. (1958) Validity of the Trail Making Test as an Indicator of Organic Brain Damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271-276.