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.

41/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) show primary deficits in memory and are at increased risk for developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). In light of recent evidence that executive cognitive deficits are common in AD and may be detectable in individuals diagnosed with MCI, we extend these findings to the investigation of response inhibition, an essential aspect of executive cognitive control. Twenty MCI patients and 20 healthy controls (HC) completed an arrow version of the flanker task [Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of target letters in a non-search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149] in which participants responded to a target arrow surrounded by distractors (i.e., flankers) that signaled a same (congruent) or a conflicting (incongruent) response. Reaction time (RT) increased in both groups when flankers signaled an incongruent response, but more so among MCI patients. MCI patients taking a cholinesterase inhibitor showed smaller flanker interference effects than those not taking this medication. Analysis of the flanker effect as a function of the entire RT distribution indicated that MCI patients show increasing interference at the slowest segments of the distribution, a finding that implicates deficient inhibition of the incongruent response [Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action. Attention & performance, Vol. XIX (pp. 494-519). Oxford: Oxford University Press]. These results suggest that deficits in response inhibition are detectable in MCI patients and merit further investigation as to whether these changes aid prediction of which MCI patients convert to AD.

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

APA 7th

Wylie, S. A., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Eckerle, M. K., & Manning, C. A. (2007). Inefficient response inhibition in individuals with mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.003

Vancouver

Wylie SA, Ridderinkhof KR, Eckerle MK, Manning CA. Inefficient response inhibition in individuals with mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia. 2007. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.003. PMID: 17178419.

BibTeX

@article{wylie2007-17178419,
  author  = {Wylie, S. A. and Ridderinkhof, K. R. and Eckerle, M. K. and Manning, C. A.},
  title   = {{Inefficient response inhibition in individuals with mild cognitive impairment}},
  journal = {Neuropsychologia},
  year    = {2007},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.003},
  pmid    = {17178419},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.003}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) show primary deficits in memory and are at increased risk for developing Alzheimer's disease (AD).
In light of recent evidence that executive cognitive deficits are common in AD and may be detectable in individuals diagnosed with MCI, we extend these findings to the investigation of response inhibition, an essential aspect of executive cognitive control.
Analysis of the flanker effect as a function of the entire RT distribution indicated that MCI patients show increasing interference at the slowest segments of the distribution, a finding that implicates deficient inhibition of the incongruent response [Ridderinkhof, K.
These results suggest that deficits in response inhibition are detectable in MCI patients and merit further investigation as to whether these changes aid prediction of which MCI patients convert to AD.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 41/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomized / 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, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropsychologia)
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	2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
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	3 / 3	Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17178419)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	24 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total	41 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Treatments from nearby years

Also tagged “response”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “response”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →