Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Overdependence on degraded gist memory in Alzheimer's disease.
David A. Gallo, Kameron R. Shahid, Meredith A. Olson, Todd M. Solomon, Daniel L. Schacter, Andrew E. Budson. Neuropsychology, 2006-11-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Alzheimer's disease (AD) reduces associative effects on false recognition in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott task, either due to impaired memory for gist or impaired use of gist in memory decisions. Gist processes were manipulated by blocking or mixing studied words according to their associations and by varying the associative strength between studied and nonstudied words at test. Both associative blocking and associative strength had smaller effects on false recognition in AD patients than in control participants, consistent with gist memory impairments. However, unlike the case with control participants, blocking influenced true and false recognition equally in AD patients, demonstrating an overdependence on gist when making memory decisions. AD also impaired item-specific recollections, relative to control participants, as true recognition of studied words was reduced even when the two groups were equated on gist-based false recognition. We propose that the overdependence on degraded gist memory in AD is caused by even larger impairments in item-specific recollections.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gallo, D. A., Shahid, K. R., Olson, M. A., Solomon, T. M., Schacter, D. L., & Budson, A. E. (2006). Overdependence on degraded gist memory in Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.20.6.625
Vancouver
Gallo DA, Shahid KR, Olson MA, Solomon TM, Schacter DL, Budson AE. Overdependence on degraded gist memory in Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychology. 2006. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.20.6.625. PMID: 17100507.
BibTeX
@article{gallo2006-17100507,
author = {Gallo, David A. and Shahid, Kameron R. and Olson, Meredith A. and Solomon, Todd M. and Schacter, Daniel L. and Budson, Andrew E.},
title = {{Overdependence on degraded gist memory in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Neuropsychology},
year = {2006},
doi = {10.1037/0894-4105.20.6.625},
pmid = {17100507},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.20.6.625}
}
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.
Key findings
- Gist processes were manipulated by blocking or mixing studied words according to their associations and by varying the associative strength between studied and nonstudied words at test.
- Both associative blocking and associative strength had smaller effects on false recognition in AD patients than in control participants, consistent with gist memory impairments.
- However, unlike the case with control participants, blocking influenced true and false recognition equally in AD patients, demonstrating an overdependence on gist when making memory decisions.
- AD also impaired item-specific recollections, relative to control participants, as true recognition of studied words was reduced even when the two groups were equated on gist-based false recognition.
- We propose that the overdependence on degraded gist memory in AD is caused by even larger impairments in item-specific recollections.
Why it matters
This study found that Alzheimer's disease patients showed smaller effects of associative blocking and associative strength on false recognition compared to controls, consistent with gist memory impairments. It proposes that overdependence on degraded gist memory in Alzheimer's disease is caused by even larger impairments in item-specific recollections.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
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 senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 53 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropsychology) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Neuropsychology: journal h-index 183 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 2006 — 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 / 7 | Cited 4,733 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 215.1 citations a year over 22 year(s) since 2006 |
| Impact for its field and year | 5 / 6 | Cited 35.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 5 / 6 | Cited by 141 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 521 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of Chicago: institution h-index 1,769 (OpenAlex) |
| Multicenter collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 2 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17100507) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 53 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 53 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 22.
Later studies that cite this one
145 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also in Cognitive tests and assessment
102 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.