Premium
The FNAME yields equivalent results differentiating amnestic mild cognitive impairment from subjective cognitive decline and healthy controls in Mexico and the Netherlands
Author(s) -
FloresVazquez Juan Francisco,
Van der Kolk Iris,
ContrerasLópez José Juan,
CruzContreras Cecilia,
Stegeman Rutger A.,
del Pilar AndrésBenito María,
AcostaCastillo Gilberto Isaac,
Aleman André,
SosaOrtíz Ana Luisa,
EnriquezGeppert Stefanie
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1002/alz.044333
Subject(s) - recall , cognitive decline , audiology , episodic memory , cognition , cognitive impairment , psychology , post hoc analysis , analysis of variance , dementia , amnesia , medicine , clinical psychology , disease , psychiatry , cognitive psychology
Background The Face‐Name Associative Memory Exam (FNAME) has been shown to detect memory deficits early in the spectrum of Alzheimer’s disease. In this study, we used a newly developed and further extended version of the FNAME, to evaluate the discriminating ability of this test in amnestic cognitive decline (aMCI), amnestic subjective cognitive decline (aSMD), and healthy controls (HC) in two different cultures, namely Mexico and the Netherlands. Method Participants were recruited in two sites, in Mexico (n= 69) and the Netherlands (n= 55). The mean age of the subjects was 69.3 ±6 years, and the mean years of education 15.5 ±5 years. In this study we used a newly extended version of the FNAME that was developed in both countries concurrently. A total of 42 aMCI, 43 aSCD, and 32 HC were assessed. We used a mixed model ANOVA, with the factors FNAME (7 subtests), GROUPS (aMCI, aSCD, HC), and the SITES (Mexico, the Netherlands) and post hoc t‐tests. Result Crucially, a high interaction of FNAME x GROUPS was revealed. Subsequent t–tests showed that the FNAME was able to detect differences between aMCI and aSCD/HC. No significant differences were observed between aSCD and HC. The three‐way interaction’s effect was non‐significant (F= 1.7, p= 0.07). As expected, we found a significant main effect of FNAME (F= 228.4, p< 0.001) demonstrating differences of demands of the subtests (e.g., recall, recognition), as well as a main effect of GROUPS (F= 2.1, p= 0.02). A two‐way interaction of FNAME x SITES was similarly revealed (F= 2.95, p< 0.001), reflecting a difference regarding the performance between sites. Conclusion This newly adapted and extended version of the FNAME test is able to differentiate aMCI subjects from aSCD and EC both in Mexico and in the Netherlands. Further studies should focus on better understanding the differences in performance in these countries.