Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:18:35.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Boosting Familiarity-Based Memory Decisions in Alzheimer’s Disease: The Importance of Metacognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2020

Marie Geurten Open the ORCID record for Marie Geurten [Opens in a new window] ,
Eric Salmon ,
Sylvie Willems  and
Christine Bastin
Marie Geurten*
Affiliation:
GIGA Cyclotron Research Center, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium Psychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium National Fund for Scientific Research, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
Eric Salmon
Affiliation:
GIGA Cyclotron Research Center, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium Psychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium Memory Center, Department of Neurology, CHU of Liège, Liège, Belgium
Sylvie Willems
Affiliation:
Psychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
Christine Bastin
Affiliation:
GIGA Cyclotron Research Center, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium Psychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium National Fund for Scientific Research, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Marie Geurten, University of Liège B33 Trifacultaire – Quartier Agora, Place des Orateurs 1, 4000Liège, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Recent studies in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have suggested that AD patients are not always able to rely on their feeling of familiarity to improve their memory decisions to the same extent as healthy participants. This underuse of familiarity in AD could result from a learned reinterpretation of fluency as a poor cue for memory that would prevent them to attribute a feeling of fluency to a previous encounter. The primary goal of this study was to determine whether AD patients could relearn the association between processing fluency and past exposure after being repeatedly exposed to situations where using this association improves the accuracy of their memory decisions.

Method:

Thirty-nine patients with probable AD were recruited and asked to complete several recognition tests. During these tests, participants were put either in a condition where the positive contingency between fluent processing and previous encounters with an item was systematically confirmed (intervention condition) or in a condition where there was no correlation between fluency and prior exposure (control condition). The efficacy of the intervention was evaluated at three time points (baseline, posttest, and 3-month follow-up).

Results:

Our results indicated that all AD patients do not benefit to the same extent from the training. Two variables appeared to influence the likelihood that participants increase and maintain their reliance on the fluency cues after the intervention: the ability to detect the fluency manipulation and the preservation of implicit metacognitive skills.

Conclusion:

These findings indicate the importance of metacognition for inferential attribution processes in memory.

Keywords

Neurodegenerative diseasesRecognitionMemoryFluencyMetacognitionTraining
Type
Regular Research
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , March 2021 , pp. 239 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ally, B.A., Gold, C.A., & Budson, A.E. (2009). An evaluation of recollection and familiarity in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment using receiver operating characteristics. Brain and Cognition, 69(3), 504–513. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.11.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballesteros, S. & Reales, J.M. (2004). Intact haptic priming in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease: Evidence for dissociable memory systems. Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1063–1070. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastin, C., Besson, G., Simon, J., Delhaye, E., Geurten, M., Willems, S., & Salmon, E. (2019). An integrative memory model of recollection and familiarity to understand memory deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, 1–66. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X19000621 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bomilcar, I., Morris, R.G., Brown, R.G., & Mograbi, D.C. (2018). Implicit behavioral change in response to cognitive tasks in Alzheimer disease. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 31(1), 2–12. doi: 10.1097/wnn.0000000000000145 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cormack, F.K., Tovee, M., & Ballard, C. (2000). Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15, 614–620. doi: 10.1002/1099-1166(200007) 3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Efklides, A. & Petkaki, C. (2005). Effects of mood on students’ metacognitive experiences. Learning and Instruction, 15, 415–431. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embree, L.M., Budson, A.E., & Ally, B.A. (2012). Memorial familiarity remains intact for pictures but not for words in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia, 50(9), 2333–2340. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J.A., & Posner, M.I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288–307. doi: 10.1006/ccog.2000.0447 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of psychiatric research, 12(3), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galvin, S.J., Podd, J.V., Drga, V., & Whitmore, J. (2003). Type 2 tasks in the theory of signal detectability: Discrimination between correct and incorrect decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 843–876. doi: 10.3758/bf03196546 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geurten, M., Bastin, C., Salmon, E., & Willems, S. (2020). Hunting down the source: How amnesic patients avoid fluency-based memory errors. Neuropsychology, 34(1), 15–23. doi: 10.1037/neu0000566 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geurten, M., Salmon, E., & Bastin, C. (2019). Impaired explicit self-awareness but preserved behavioral regulation in patients with Alzheimer disease. Aging & Mental Health, 1–7. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2019.1675142 Google ScholarPubMed
Geurten, M. & Willems, S. (2017). The learned reinterpretation of fluency in amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 101, 10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.05.012 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geurten, M., Willems, S., & Meulemans, T. (2015). Beyond the experience: Detection of metamemorial regularities. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 16–23. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.11.009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geurten, M., Willems, S., Salmon, E., & Bastin, C. (2020). Fluency-based memory decisions in Alzheimer’s disease: A matter of source detection? Neuropsychology, 34(2), 176–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grober, E., Merling, A., Heimlich, T., & Lipton, R.B. (1997). Free and cued selective reminding and selective reminding in the elderly. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 19(5), 643–654. doi: 10.1080/01688639708403750 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacoby, L.L. & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(3), 306–340. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keane, M.M., Gabrieli, J.D.E., Fennema, A.C., Growdon, J.H., & Corkin, S. (1991). Evidence for a dissociation between perceptual and conceptual priming in Alzheimer’s disease. Behavioral Neuroscience, 105(2), 326–342. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.105.2.326 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, C.M. & Rhodes, M.G. (2002). Making sense and nonsense of experience: Attributions in memory and judgment, In B.H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol. 41, (pp. 293–320). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levinoff, E.J., Li, K.Z.H., Murtha, S., & Chertkow, H. (2004). Selective attention impairments in Alzheimer’s disease: evidence for dissociable components. Neuropsychology, 18, 580–588. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.18.3.580 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKhann, G.M., Knopman, D.S., Chertkow, H., Hyman, B.T., Jack, C.R., Kawas, C.H., … Phelps, C.H. (2011). The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 7(3), 263–269. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mograbi, D.C., Brown, R.G., Salas, C., & Morris, R.G. (2012). Emotional reactivity and awareness of task performance in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 50(8), 2075–2084. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.05.008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, T.O. & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–141. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, M.K. & Ally, B.A. (2010). Using stimulus form change to understand memorial familiarity for pictures and words in patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 48(7), 2068–2074. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.03.027 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olds, J.M. & Westerman, D.L. (2012). Can fluency be interpreted as novelty? Retraining the interpretation of fluency in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 653–664. doi: 10.1037/a0026784 Google ScholarPubMed
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, J., Bastin, C., Salmon, E., & Willems, S. (2018). Increasing the salience of fluency cues does not reduce the recognition memory impairment in Alzheimer’s disease! Journal of Neuropsychology, 12, 213–230. doi: 10.1111/jnp.12112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, C., Kanai, R., Fleming, S.M., Weil, R.S., Schwarzkopf, D.S., & Rees, G. (2011). Relating inter-individual differences in metacognitive performance on different perceptual tasks. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1787–1792. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Souchay, C. & Moulin, C.J.A. (2009). Memory and consciousness in Alzheimer’s disease. Current Alzheimer Research, 6, 186–195. doi: 10.2174/156720509788486545 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unkelbach, C. (2006). The learned interpretation of cognitive fluency. Psychological Science, 17(4), 339–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01708.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 219–230. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.219 Google ScholarPubMed
Unkelbach, C. & Greifeneder, R. (2013). A general model of fluency effects in judgment and decision making, In Unkelbach, C. & Greifeneder, R. (Eds.), The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerberg, C.E., Paller, K.A., Weintraub, S., Mesulam, M.M., Holdstock, J.S., Mayes, A.R., & Reber, P.J. (2006). When memory does not fail: Familiarity-based recognition in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 20(2), 193–205. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.20.2.193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittlesea, B.W.A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1235–1253. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235 Google Scholar
Whittlesea, B.W.A., Masson, M.E.J., & Hughes, A.D. (2005). False memory following rapidly presented lists: The element of surprise. Psychological Research, 69(5–6), 420–430. doi: 10.1007/s00426-005-0213-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittlesea, B.W.A. & Williams, L.D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98(2–3), 141–165. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00040-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittlesea, B.W.A. & Williams, L.D. (2000). The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 547–565. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.547 Google ScholarPubMed
Whittlesea, B.W.A. & Williams, L.D. (2001a). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 3–13. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.3 Google ScholarPubMed
Whittlesea, B.W.A. & Williams, L.D. (2001b). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: II. Expectation, uncertainty, surprise, and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 14–33. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.14 Google Scholar
Willems, S., Germain, S., Salmon, E., & Van der Linden, M. (2009). Patients with Alzheimer’s disease use metamemory to attenuate the Jacoby–Whitehouse illusion. Neuropsychologia, 47(12), 2672–2676. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.04.029 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willems, S. & Van der Linden, M. (2006). Mere exposure effect: A consequence of direct and indirect fluency–preference links. Consciousness and Cognition, 15(2), 323–341. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolk, D.A., Signoff, E.D., & DeKosky, S.T. (2008). Recollection and familiarity in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: A global decline in recognition memory. Neuropsychologia, 46(7), 1965–1978. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.01.017 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yonelinas, A.P., Kroll, N.E.A., Quamme, J.R., Lazzara, M.M., Sauvé, M.-J., Widaman, K.F., & Knight, R.T. (2002). Effects of extensive temporal lobe damage or mild hypoxia on recollection and familiarity. Nature Neuroscience, 5(11), 1236–1241. doi: 10.1038/nn961 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed