Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Inhibitory control of saccadic eye movements and cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease
Crawford TJ, Higham S, Renvoize T, Patel J, Dale M, Suriya A, Tetley S.. Biological psychiatry, 2005-05-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background This study examined the relationship of inhibitory control and measures of neuropsychological impairment in patients with early Alzheimer's disease (AD). Four specific questions were addressed: 1) Which error parameters of saccadic inhibition are sensitive to AD? 2) Which inhibitory deficits are related to cognitive measures of impairment? 3) Is the inhibitory impairment in AD dependent on the initiation of a volitional eye movement? 4) How do the effects of saccadic inhibitory control in AD relate to the normal effects of aging? Methods Eighteen patients with probable AD and two control groups (seventeen young, and eighteen old participants) completed a battery of neuropsychological tests and four saccadic eye movement paradigms: pro-saccade, NO-GO, GO/NO-GO and anti-saccade. Results Old controls generated increased inhibition errors in comparison to young controls in the GO/NO-GO paradigm. In comparison to old controls, AD generated normal saccades in the pro-saccade paradigm, but showed a higher proportion of inhibition errors in the NO-GO, GO/NO-GO and anti-paradigms. The frequency of uncorrected errors in the anti-saccade paradigm was positively correlated with cognitive measures of dementia. Conclusions AD patients have an impairment of inhibitory control and error-correction that exceeds the effects of normal aging and is related to the severity of dementia. However, the inhibitory impairment is not contingent on the interaction with a volitional saccade.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Crawford, T. J., Higham, S., Renvoize, T., Patel, J., Dale, M., Suriya, A., et al. (2005). Inhibitory control of saccadic eye movements and cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease. Biological psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.017
Vancouver
Crawford TJ, Higham S, Renvoize T, Patel J, Dale M, Suriya A, et al. Inhibitory control of saccadic eye movements and cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease. Biological psychiatry. 2005. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.017. PMID: 15860346.
BibTeX
@article{crawford2005-15860346,
author = {Crawford, T. J. and Higham, S. and Renvoize, T. and Patel, J. and Dale, M. and Suriya, A. and Tetley, S.},
title = {{Inhibitory control of saccadic eye movements and cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Biological psychiatry},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.017},
pmid = {15860346},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.017}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Old controls generated increased inhibition errors in comparison to young controls in the GO/NO-GO paradigm.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Biological psychiatry) |
| 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 | 2005 — 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) |
| 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 15860346) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.