Premium
Preferential preservation of constructional praxis delayed recall compared to word list delayed recall in the Amish
Author(s) -
Prough Michael B.,
Caywood Laura J.,
Clouse Jason E.,
Herington Sharlene D.,
Slifer Susan H.,
Dorfsman Daniel A.,
Adams Larry D.,
Laux Renee A.,
Song Yeunjoo E.,
Lynn Audrey,
Fuzzell M. Denise,
Fuzzell Sarada L.,
Sewell Jane L.,
Miller Sherri D.,
Miskimen Kristy L.,
Main Leighanne R,
Osterman Michael D.,
Ogrocki Paula K.,
Lerner Alan J.,
Ramos Jairo,
Vance Jeffery M.,
Cuccaro Michael L.,
Haines Jonathan L.,
Scott William K.,
PericakVance Margaret A.
Publication year - 2021
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.056386
Subject(s) - cognition , recall , demography , population , effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance , odds ratio , centenarian , medicine , psychology , gerontology , psychiatry , sociology , cognitive psychology
Background While studying cognition in the Amish, we have observed strong performance on the constructional praxis delayed recall (CPDR) as compared to other cognitive tests, independent of overall cognitive status. This may indicate a preferential preservation of visuoconstructive memory in this population. Here, we investigate this by comparing the CPDR to the word list delayed recall (WLDR) while controlling for relationship, genetic risk of Alzheimer disease, and other covariates. Method Amish individuals > 65 years of age (mean age=82) in Indiana/Ohio were examined (n=512) and assigned by consensus review to Normal, MCI/Borderline, or Impaired cognitive status. Paired t‐tests were used to compare the CPDR and WLDR Z‐scores. Using genome‐wide genotype data, a kinship matrix and principal components (PCs) estimating population substructure were calculated. Genetic Risk Scores (GRS) were also calculated using genome‐wide significant variants from Kunkle et al. (2019), weighted by log odds ratio estimates. Using linear regression adjusting for relatedness, we modeled the contribution of GRS, PC1, PC2, cognitive status, age, sex, and education level to the difference between the CPDR and WLDR Z‐scores. Result We found a significantly better performance on CPDR over WLDR in every cognitive status group, with this difference between Z‐scores being 1.02 units for Normal, 1.72 units for MCI/Borderline, and 1.58 units for Impaired. Linear regression of this difference in Z‐scores found significant associations with age, sex, and cognitive status. The effect size of cognitive status was 0.65 units for MCI/Borderline and 0.50 units for Impaired, with Normal as the reference category. This indicates that MCI/Borderline and Impaired individuals have a significantly larger gap between CPDR and WLDR Z‐scores than Normal individuals. Conclusion These results suggest that the Amish may preserve memory of constructional praxis relative to word list, especially in MCI/Borderline and Impaired individuals. This indicates that impaired Amish individuals, including those with Alzheimer disease, may decline at a slower rate in visuoconstructive memory than other domains. Genetic Risk Score was not significantly associated with this preferential preservation of constructional praxis, suggesting that it may not be explained by known risk genes. This warrants further studies to identify genetic and other factors associated with this preferential preservation.