MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160460724 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcab087

Memory precision of object-location binding is unimpaired in <i>APOE</i> ε4-carriers with spatial navigation deficits

2021· article· en· W3160460724 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsMnemonicPsychologyEpisodic memoryObject (grammar)Cognitive psychologyCognitionSpatial memoryComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceWorking memoryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Research suggests that tests of memory fidelity, feature binding and spatial navigation are promising for early detection of subtle behavioural changes related to Alzheimer’s disease. In the absence of longitudinal data, one way of testing the early detection potential of cognitive tasks is through the comparison of individuals at different genetic risk for Alzheimer’s dementia. Most studies have done so using samples aged 70 years or older. Here, we tested whether memory fidelity of long-term object-location binding may be a sensitive marker even among cognitively healthy individuals in their mid-60s by comparing participants at low and higher risk based on presence of the ε4-allele of the apolipoprotein gene (n = 26 ε3ε3, n = 20 ε3ε4 carriers). We used a continuous report paradigm in a visual memory task that required participants to recreate the spatial position of objects in a scene. We employed mixture modelling to estimate the two distinct memory processes that underpin the trial-by-trial variation in localization errors: retrieval success which indexes the proportion of trials where participants recalled any information about an object’s position and the precision with which participants retrieved this information. Prior work has shown that these memory paradigms that separate retrieval success from precision are capable of detecting subtle differences in mnemonic fidelity even when retrieval success could not. Nonetheless, Bayesian analyses found good evidence that ε3ε4 carriers did not remember fewer object locations [F(1, 42) = 0.450, P = 0.506, BF01 = 3.02], nor was their precision for the spatial position of objects reduced compared to ε3ε3 carriers [F(1, 42) = 0.12, P = 0.726, BF01 = 3.19]. Because the participants in the sample presented here were a subset of a study on apolipoprotein ε4-carrier status and spatial navigation in the Sea Hero Quest game [Coughlan et al., 2019. PNAS, 116(9)], we obtained these data to contrast genetic effects on the two tasks within the same sample (n = 33). Despite the smaller sample size, wayfinding deficits among ε3ε4 carriers could be replicated [F(1, 33) = 5.60, P = 0.024, BF10 = 3.44]. Object-location memory metrics and spatial navigation scores were not correlated (all r &amp;lt; 0.25, P &amp;gt; 0.1, 0 &amp;lt; BF10 &amp;lt; 3). These findings show spared object-location binding in the presence of a detrimental apolipoprotein ε4 effect on spatial navigation. This suggests that the sensitivity of memory fidelity and binding tasks may not extend to individuals with one ε4-allele in their early to mid-60s. The results provide further support to prior proposals that spatial navigation may be a sensitive marker for the earliest cognitive changes in Alzheimer’s disease, even before episodic memory.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it