P2‐437: Efficacy of a memory training program using errorless or errorful learning in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: Preliminary results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of errorless (EL) learning in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients was demonstrated in previous research. Since individuals with Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (A-MCI) are at increased risk of developing AD, it is thus of interest to apply an EL approach to this particular population. Objective: The main goal of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of a memory training program using an EL paradigm compared to a control condition, the errorful (EF) learning, to help A-MCI individuals learn new people's names. Twenty individuals meeting Petersen's criteria for A-MCI were included in the study. Participants were randomized to the EL (n=11) or the EF (n=9) condition, and took part in 6 individual sessions over three weeks. They were trained to learn and recall 5 new face-name associations (first and last names) using the EL or EF paradigm. The program also contained psycho-educational content regarding different aspects of memory functioning. Measures of the trained material together with objective and subjective tests of memory were administered at baseline and post-intervention sessions. Mixed ANOVAs revealed a main effect of time on the capacity to recall the trained material (F(1,18) = 60.371, p<0.001). Group effect was however not significant. A significant pre-post effect was also observed on two subscales of the Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire. Participants thus reported a significant higher degree of satisfaction regarding their memory at the end of the program (F(1,18)=9.547, p<0.01) and also a superior self-reported use of mnemonic strategies in everyday life compared to baseline (F(1,18)=14.395, p<0.01). However, there was no group effect. These preliminary results showed overall efficacy of the intervention program, regardless of the condition. However, several factors might explain the absence of significant difference between the two groups such as both received a psycho-educational intervention. In addition, explicit memory and general cognitive functioning are more preserved in A-MCI than in AD, thus probably making any intervention in MCI more efficacious than in AD. Long-term follow-up of these data will permit to verify if the training gains will be maintained over time, and similarly, between the two conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".