Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

To determine if impaired dichotic performance in patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type is due to the inability to divide attention or the inability to perceive degraded auditory stimuli, we measured performance on tasks of both dichotic and degraded monotic speech materials. We also examined whether perception of degraded speech stimuli presented monaurally is related to abnormalities of temporal lobe anatomy and physiology, as we have shown for dichotic performance. Although the patients were impaired on both dichotic and monotic tests, significantly greater impairment was seen on the dichotic test. Our earlier finding of a significant relation between dichotic performance and measures of anterior temporal lobe atrophy and reduced glucose metabolism was replicated, but no significant relation was found between monotic tests and measures to temporal lobe integrity. We conclude that the inability to divide attention, rather than abnormal processing of degraded stimuli per se, is reflected in poor dichotic performance in patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type, and that dichotic performance, unlike degraded monotic perception, depends directly on the integrity of temporal cortex in these patients.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study found that patients with Alzheimer-type dementia were more impaired on a dichotic speech test than on degraded monotic speech tests, concluding the difficulty reflects an inability to divide attention. It examines cognitive mechanisms and does not report any treatment, cure, or prevention.

Study details

How this study scored 33/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 21 of the 64 points it could be judged on, which is 33 of 100. Total 33 of 100.21 of the 64 points we could judge = 33 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 64 points we could judge it on, which is 33 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Archives of neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 1989 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 2919988)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 21 / 64 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 64 points we could judge it on is 33 out of 100.
Total 33 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Grady, C. L., Grimes, A. M., Patronas, N., Sunderland, T., Foster, N. L., & Rapoport, S. I. (1989). Divided attention, as measured by dichotic speech performance, in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Archives of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1989.00520390083021

Vancouver

Grady CL, Grimes AM, Patronas N, Sunderland T, Foster NL, Rapoport SI. Divided attention, as measured by dichotic speech performance, in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Archives of neurology. 1989. doi:10.1001/archneur.1989.00520390083021. PMID: 2919988.

BibTeX

@article{grady1989-2919988,
  author  = {Grady, C. L. and Grimes, A. M. and Patronas, N. and Sunderland, T. and Foster, N. L. and Rapoport, S. I.},
  title   = {{Divided attention, as measured by dichotic speech performance, in dementia of the Alzheimer type}},
  journal = {Archives of neurology},
  year    = {1989},
  doi     = {10.1001/archneur.1989.00520390083021},
  pmid    = {2919988},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1989.00520390083021}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →