1. Rosen et al., 2014 |
12 - FTD 14 - AD 35 - HE |
• FOK • EOL • JOL • Retrospective CR • Response to feedback |
EOL, memory encoding, JOL • Free Recall • FOK and recognition memory • Retrospective Confidence ratings (item-by-item) • Response to feedback |
• EOL, memory encoding, JOL - after learning the word list, show the first word in each pair and asked to remember the second word pair. After seeing two examples, asked to say how many pairs they would likely be able to recall - predict how many of the words they would recognize from among the choices. • Free Recall - participants were shown the first word in each pair, one at time, and asked to recall the associate for each. • FOK and recognition memory - participants were shown the first word in each pair, one at a time, and reminded the correct associate among them. • Retrospective Confidence Ratings (item-by-item) - participants were shown the first word in each pair, one a time, and asked to rate their confidence that they had chosen the correct associate. • Response to feedback - participants had to rate how many pairs they had recalled correctly. Immediately following this feedback, they were asked to make another recall prediction about if give a similar list pair how many pairs will be remembered. |
• Recognition predictions were higher then recall predictions in all groups. • AD and FTD patients appropriately lowered their estimates based on task conditions and experience with the specific stimuli. • Recall prediction 2 was higher than actual in all groups. FTD patients rated themselves similar to controls. • Significant impairments in FOK accuracy in FTD and AD, the deficit appeared more severe in FTD. • FTD participants used moderately confident and not very confident less often and used just guessing more often than controls. AD participants used moderately confident, not very confident and just guessing more often than controls. • Controls distributed their responses fairly evenly across all four FOK ratings but used the just guessing rating less than the others. AD patients responses were skewed toward lower ratings. FTD patients responses were quite aberrant. Most of their responses fell into the highly confident or just guessing categories. • The relationship between retrospective confidence and accuracy was significantly different in FTD and AD compared with controls. • Recall prediction 3, was lower than all prior predictions in all three groups. However, FTD patients did not lower their prediction commensurate with their score. |
2. Shaked et al., 2014 |
109 - Mild to moderate AD 50 - HE |
• Global cognition |
• MMSE • PVLT • Biber figure learning test • FAS • GPG |
• Global metamemory judgments prior to and following the presentation of the individual items, as well as judgments for each individual item. • Immediately after the first learning trial, predictions for memory performance were acquired - eight possible answers • The tester did not give feedback and moved on the next item. |
• Metamemory was associated with both nonverbal fluency as well as nonverbal memory. • The study failed to find a significant association between metamemory and letter fluency, a verbally based executive task. • Neuropsychological evidence has indicated the involvement of right prefrontal regions in both metamemory and nonverbal executive tasks. |
3. Schmitter-Edgecombe & Seelye, 2011 |
20 - AD 20 - HE |
• Global prediction • On line e Offline metamemory |
• Medical interview CDR • The telephone interview of cognitive status-modified • Memory Functioning Questionnaire • RAVLT • MFQ |
• A global performance prediction paradigm - predicted the number of word they would remember both prior to after completing a list -learning memory test (online assessment memory). • Self-ratings about their everyday memory failures (offline assessment memory). |
• AD group demonstrated poorer episodic memory performance than controls and overestimated their episodic memory performance. The AD group was significantly less accurate than control group. • AD group overestimated their everyday memory abilities. AD group learned disproportionately fewer words across the five learning trials than HE. AD group was able to successfully modify their predictions based on task experience. The memory predict accuracy of the AD group did not differ from the control group at postexperience. The memory prediction of the AD group was significantly better postexperience than at preexperience. Patients with AD were able to monitor their performances and subsequently use this information to derive more accurate postexoerience performance expectations. |
4. Galeone et al., 2010 |
25 - MCI 15 - mild DA 21 - HE |
• OJ • Subjective rating of memory function |
• Italian Interdisciplinary network on AD • MAC-Q • Frontal Assessment Batery • Subjective rating of memory function • Objective judgement task |
• Six-items questionnaire (the subject had to rate, for every items, the presence of daily life memory failures on a likert scale rating from 0 to 4. Caregivers completed an informant version of the scale in order to obtain a discrepancy score (SRD). • Objective judgement task - three lists of 10 not-semantically related words comparable for length. • The participants had to predict how many words they would be able to recall (pre-study prediction). After, they studied the 10 words of the list, one at a time for 2s each, reading each word aloud. • Subjects were asked to predict again their performance (post-study prediction) and then recalled the words of the list. • After the recall, the subject and the examiner brietly commented the task but no explicit feedback on performance was given. |
• The AD performing worse than the MCI and these, in turn, worse than the HE. • While for MCI and AD accuracy did not change across the three lists, the accuracy of the HE increased from list 1 to list 3. • The three groups were more accurate at the post-list judgement only for the first list. • The HE overestimated their performance at the beginning of the trial, but progressively revised their prediction so that, at the third list, this was virtually perfect. Both AD and MCI subjects consistently overestimated their performance across the three lists. • A consistent proportion of AD and MCI subjects had reduced awareness of their memory disturbances at the clinical interview. |
5. Hannesdottir et al., 2007 |
92 - early or unspecified AD 92 - HE |
• OJD • SRD |
• The experimenter rating (OJD) • SRD scale • ERS • memory test for faces • RAVLT • digit span • trail making test • Language • Visuospational function • intrusional Erros |
• Objective judgment discrepancy - the subject makes a judgment on his/her performance on the memory tests. Following each memory test item, the participant was asked to estimate the percentage/number if items successfully recalled from the memory test. • Subjective rating discrepancy - Contains questions pertaining to different aspects of memory ability in everyday life. Participants were required to rate their ability to perform certain memory related activities as well as to estimate the frequency with which they made errors. Subjective rating discrepancy to different aspects of memory. For the patients, the questionnaire was also administered to informants in third person. • The experimenter rating - The scale required the experimenter to rate the level of anosognosia for memory deficit. The participant reported difficulties. This scale was administered for patients only. |
• All anosognosia assessment methods used in this study (the OJD, SRD and ERS) revealed a significant difference between AD patients, showing more anosognosia for their memory functioning than the comparison group. • OJD judgement might be more highly related to monitoring of ongoing memory performance in addition to self-efficacy beliefs and memory knowledge and the on-line process, which in turn may rely on frontal lobe functioning. • The SRD and ERS measures may pick up on the development of awareness, or otherwise, in relation to integrating information about efficacy in different settings over a long period of time. The SRD Global ratings scale was significantly correlated with the SRD memory scale, but this might be predicted because the scales use similar techniques. However, the ERS measure correlated with the SRD global rating scale, but not the SRD memory scale. The ERS measure and SRD global rating scale provide a more of an overview of anosognosic deficit in general than the more specific areas explored by the SRD memory scale. |
6. Souchay et al., 2003 |
16 - AD 6 - FTD 16 - HE |
• WMS-R • FCSRT • WCST • TMT • FAS • Global Prediction Accuracy |
• Global memory prediction |
• Participants wrote down the number of items they believed they would recall on the final paired-associate recall test (before study prediction). |
• AD and FTD patients predicted recalling as many word as control subjects. For the predictions before and after study, the analysis did not reveal any significant difference between AD patients and control group. For FTD patients, there was no significant difference for the predictions made before or after study. A significant difference between AD and controls in prediction accuracy measures both before and after study, with AD patients predicting more than they recalled and control subjects recalling more than they predict. FDT and AD patients seemed to be less accurated than control subjects in predicting their memory performance. A significant group difference between AD and FTD was found only for after-study prediction accuracy score, with FTD patients predicting more than they recalled to a greater extent than AD patients. |
7. Moulin et al., 2000 |
16 - AD 16 - HE |
• JOL • Recall readiness |
• MEEM • Family Interview • Laboratory screening • Liver and thyroid function • Calcium and syphilis • Medical examination • JOL instruction |
• Participants had to estimate how many times a word had been seen. And were required to remember as many as items as possible. • Three phases to this experiment: presentation, recall and recognition. |
• HE group were better than AD group. • Beneficit of repetition in both groups. • Dissociation in the AD group between judgments of learning and allocation of study time. • HE showed repetition effects for both study time and their explicit judgments of how well they have learned the items and this is not the case of AD group. |
8. Moulin et al., 2000 |
16 - AD 16 - HE |
• JOL • Ranking judgment |
• MMSE • Family Interview • Laboratory screening • Medical examination • Neuropsychological examination |
Experiment 1 • Recall readiness task. • immediate free recall test at the end of the list, with an unlimited time to recall. • After presentation of 10 words, there was a short recall • verbal free recall of the items that they had studied.JOL task: • This was the same as the recall readiness task, except that each item appeared for only 2s and was then masked. • Participants were prompted to rate how likely it was that they would be able to recall the word later. • Experiment 2 • Ranking judgment - two successive trials of the same test. • 1. Asked to rank the words in a different order (ranked the most easy to remember to most difficult) • 2. This order was reserved. |
• Giving participants as long as they like to maximize their recall performance does not improve recall. • AD recall is much lower than controls. The older adults recall significantly more easy words than difficult words. The AD group gave JOLs that were as sensitive to objective difficulty as controls. AD group spends a lot longer studying the words than controls. Examining metamemory sensitivity to items differences using both JOL and recall readiness measures, reveals no evidence of a deficit in the AD group relative to non-diseased controls. Higher JOLs for words subsequently recalled. AD group were less discriminating in their JOL ratings. No clear benefit of extra study time in recall of items in either group. AD patients were as sensitive as older adults in the ratings (JOL) they gave to items. • Memory control and recall readiness - no significant differences between groups. • recall performance was not affected by whether items were ranked from difficult to easy words or vice versa, nor did this factor interact with any other. • The HE recalled significantly more items. • Participants were sensitive to the objective differences between words and make their ranking judgements accordingly. The AD was as sensitive as HE in ranking the words, and neither group is more or less sensitive in trial 1 compared to trial 2. • Participants recalled more of words they rank as easy than the words they rank as difficult. |
9. Moulin et al., 2000 |
16 - AD 16 - HE |
• Global Judgment of performance |
• Recall readiness task • Judgment of learning task |
Experiment 1 • The word list comprised 5 easy and 5 difficult items. • List 1 - participants studied each word for an unlimited time. • List 2 - presentation time was fixed (2s per word) and participants had to give each word a rating of how likely they were to subsequently recall it. Experiment 2 • 10 words, 4 list; • The word list comprised: Easy unrelated (E-U), difficult unrelated (D-U), easy related (E-R) and difficult related (D-R). • Two levels of relatedness: related in which all the items came from the same semantic category, and unrelated in which none of the items came from the same semantic category and unrelated in which none of items came from the same semantic category. |
• The AD patients tend to overestimate their recall performance, but that they revise their predictions downward after encoding. • AD group was less accurate overall. Both groups were more accurate in the second list. • All groups make more accurate poststudy prediction than pre-study predictions. • Only AD group revises its predictions by a significant amount once they have been presented the list. The AD group monitoring its memory performance and revises its estimates of performance. • The HE group outperforming the AD group. • More words were recalled from the easy list. The HE group was sensitive to difficultly but the AD group not. • Participants recall significantly more words from the related lists, and the AD group did not benefit from relatedness to the same extent as the HE group. • The AD group did not differentiate between easy and difficult list in their predictions. There was a strong trend in the HE group to make higher predictions of performance for easy lists. • Both groups estimate that they will recall more words from the related lists and both are aware of the benefit of semantic relatedness to recall. • AD group poststudy predictions are not sensitive to item difficultly but are as sensitive to semantic relatedness as those of the HE group. • The AD group was more discrepant in their predictions than the HE group. • Participants were more accurate in their poststudy predictions. |