Proactive Semantic Interference (PSI) and failure to recover from PSI (frPSI), are novel constructs assessed by the LASSI-L. These measures are sensitive to cognitive changes in early Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) a...Proactive Semantic Interference (PSI) and failure to recover from PSI (frPSI), are novel constructs assessed by the LASSI-L. These measures are sensitive to cognitive changes in early Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and preclinical AD determined by Aβ load using PET. The goal of this study was to compare a new computerized version of the LASSI-L (LASSI-Brief Computerized) to the standard paper-and-pencil version of the test. In this study, we examined 110 cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults and 79 with amnestic MCI (aMCI) who were administered the paper-and-pencil form of the LASSI-L. Their performance was compared with 62 CU older adults and 52 aMCI participants examined using the LASSI-BC. After adjustment for covariates (degree of initial learning, sex, education, and language of evaluation) both the standard and computerized versions distinguished between aMCI and CU participants. The performance of CU and aMCI groups using either form was relatively commensurate. Importantly, an optimal combination of Cued B2 recall and Cued B1 intrusions on the LASSI-BC yielded an area under the ROC curve of .927, a sensitivity of 92.3% and specificity of 88.1%, relative to an area under the ROC curve of .815, a sensitivity of 72.5%, and a specificity of 79.1% obtained for the paper-and-pencil LASSI-L. Overall, the LASSI-BC was comparable, and in some ways, superior to the paper-and-pencil LASSI-L. Advantages of the LASSI-BC include a more standardized administration, suitability for remote assessment, and an automated scoring mechanism that can be verified by a built-in audio recording of responses.展开更多
文摘Proactive Semantic Interference (PSI) and failure to recover from PSI (frPSI), are novel constructs assessed by the LASSI-L. These measures are sensitive to cognitive changes in early Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and preclinical AD determined by Aβ load using PET. The goal of this study was to compare a new computerized version of the LASSI-L (LASSI-Brief Computerized) to the standard paper-and-pencil version of the test. In this study, we examined 110 cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults and 79 with amnestic MCI (aMCI) who were administered the paper-and-pencil form of the LASSI-L. Their performance was compared with 62 CU older adults and 52 aMCI participants examined using the LASSI-BC. After adjustment for covariates (degree of initial learning, sex, education, and language of evaluation) both the standard and computerized versions distinguished between aMCI and CU participants. The performance of CU and aMCI groups using either form was relatively commensurate. Importantly, an optimal combination of Cued B2 recall and Cued B1 intrusions on the LASSI-BC yielded an area under the ROC curve of .927, a sensitivity of 92.3% and specificity of 88.1%, relative to an area under the ROC curve of .815, a sensitivity of 72.5%, and a specificity of 79.1% obtained for the paper-and-pencil LASSI-L. Overall, the LASSI-BC was comparable, and in some ways, superior to the paper-and-pencil LASSI-L. Advantages of the LASSI-BC include a more standardized administration, suitability for remote assessment, and an automated scoring mechanism that can be verified by a built-in audio recording of responses.
