Neuropsychological comparison of incident MCI and prevalent MCI

Eye-tracking paradigms for the assessment of mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), representing the 'transitional zone' between normal cognition and dementia, has become a novel topic in clinical research. Although early detection is crucial, it remains logistically challenging at the same time. While traditional pen-and-paper tests require in-depth training to ensure standardized administration and accurate interpretation of findings, significant technological advancements are leading to the development of procedures for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and facilitating the diagnostic process. Some of the diagnostic protocols, however, show significant limitations that hamper their widespread adoption. Concerns about the social and economic implications of the increasing incidence of AD underline the need for reliable, non-invasive, cost-effective, and timely cognitive scoring methodologies. For instance, modern clinical studies report significant oculomotor impairments among patients with MCI, who perform poorly in visual paired-comparison tasks by ascribing less attentional resources to novel stimuli. To accelerate the Global Action Plan on the Public Health Response to Dementia 2017-2025, this work provides an overview of research on saccadic and exploratory eye-movement deficits among older adults with MCI. The review protocol was drafted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Electronic databases were systematically searched to identify peer-reviewed articles published between 2017 and 2022 that examined visual processing in older adults with MCI and reported gaze parameters as potential biomarkers. Moreover, following the contemporary trend for remote healthcare technologies, we reviewed studies that implemented non-commercial eye-tracking instrumentation in order to detect information processing impairments among the MCI population. Based on the gathered literature, eye-tracking-based paradigms may ameliorate the screening limitations of traditional cognitive assessments and contribute to early AD detection. However, in order to translate the findings pertaining to abnormal gaze behavior into clinical applications, it is imperative to conduct longitudinal investigations in both laboratory-based and ecologically valid settings.

Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of the INECO Frontal Screening and the Frontal Assessment Battery in mild cognitive impairment

The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and the INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) are two instruments frequently used to explore cognitive deficits in different diseases. However, studies reporting their use in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are limited.

Clinical utility of the INECO Frontal Screening for detecting Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson's disease

Cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease typically affect executive functions. Recently, the concept of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) has been related to PD (PD-MCI). PD-MCI is considered a transition phase to Parkinson's disease Dementia. Therefore, it is important to identify PD-MCI in a reliable way.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) in detecting cognitive deficits in PD-MCI. Additionally, we compare the IFS and the Addenbrook Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R) between three groups; PD-MCI, MCI, and controls.

METHODS

The IFS and ACE-R were administered to 36 patients with PD-MCI, 31 with MCI (amnestic-multidomain subtype) and 92 healthy controls. Sensitivity and specificity were determined using ROC analysis. The groups were compared using one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The IFS had adequate accuracy in differentiating patients with PD-MCI from healthy controls (AUC=0.77, sensitivity=0.82, specificity=0.77), and good accuracy in differentiating PD-MCI from MCI patients (AUC=0.80, sensitivity=0.82, specificity=0.61). However the IFS had low accuracy in differentiating MCI patients from healthy controls (AUC=0.47, sensitivity=0.52, specificity=0.41). On the ACE-R, the PD-MCI group had low performance in Fluency and Language. Only patients with PD-MCI had difficulties on the IFS, specifically in inhibitory control and visual working memory. This dysexecutive profile explains the sensitivity and specificity values found in the IFS.

CONCLUSION

The present study results suggest that the IFS is a suitable screening tool for exploring cognitive dysfunction in PD-MCI, especially in those patients with a dysexecutive profile.