A mechanistic insight into sources of error of visual working memory in multiple sclerosis
- Center for Translational Neuroscience, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Islamic Republic of Iran
- Isfahan Neuroscience Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Islamic Republic of Iran
- School of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Islamic Republic of Iran
- Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Islamic Republic of Iran
Figures
Figure 1
Schematic design of visual working memory (WM) paradigms.
(A) In the memory-guided localization (MGL) paradigm, participants were asked to memorize and then localize the position of the target circle following a random delay interval of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, or 8 …
Figure 2
Recall error and precision of healthy control and multiple sclerosis (MS) subtypes (relapsing-remitting [RRMS] and secondary progressive [SPMS]) in visual working memory (WM) paradigms.
(A) Recall error, (B) recall precision, and (C) reaction time as a function of distance for the memory-guided localization (MGL) paradigm. (D–F) The same as a function of delay interval. (G) Recall …
-
Figure 2—source data 1
Statistical reports corresponding to Figure 2.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-fig2-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 3 with 1 supplement
Sources of recall error in high and low memory load conditions (3 bar and 1 bar, respectively).
(A) von Mises SD (circular standard deviation of von Mises distribution), (B) Target response (probability of response around the target value), (C) swap error (probability of response around the …
-
Figure 3—source data 1
Statistical reports corresponding to Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 1.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-fig3-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 3—figure supplement 1
Isolated effect of orientation in the high and low memory load conditions.
The nearest-neighbor analysis determined the isolated effect of orientation for healthy control, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) in …
Figure 4
Classifying performance of visual working memory (WM) paradigms in differentiating healthy control from multiple sclerosis (MS) and MS subtypes, and MS subtypes from each other.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve demonstrated the accuracy of (A) memory-guided localization (MGL) and sequential paradigms with (B) 3 bar and (C) 1 bar in distinguishing healthy …
-
Figure 4—source data 1
Statistical reports corresponding to Figure 4.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-fig4-data1-v1.xlsx
Tables
Table 1
Demographic and clinical profiles of participants in the MGL paradigm.
| HC (n = 23) | RRMS (n = 16) | SPMS (n = 25) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (F:M) | 13:10 | 14:2 | 17:8 | 0.12 |
| Age (year) | 35.9 ± 8.34 | 37.25 ± 6.63 | 39.28 ± 5.56 | 0.25 |
| Education (years) | 13.30 ± 2.74 | 13.69 ± 3.34 | 13.56 ± 3.22 | 0.86 |
| Cognitive ability† (NL:MCI) | 23:0 | 14:2 | 19:6 | <0.05* |
| Disease duration (years) | N/A | 8.562 ± 3.20 | 11.56 ± 3.28 | <0.02* |
| EDSS | N/A | 1.28 ± 0.79 | 2.740 ± 1.23 | <0.0002* |
| DMT (platform: non-platform) | N/A | 2:14 | 0:25 | 0.07 |
-
All data, except for the categorical information, are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
-
Gender, cognitive ability, and DMT were compared using the chi-square test. Age and education were compared using one-way ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis H test, respectively. Disease duration and EDSS score were compared using Mann–Whitney U test and independent-sample t-test, respectively.
-
HC = healthy control, RRMS = relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, SPMS = secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, NL = normal (MoCA score ≥26), MCI = mild cognitive impairment (MoCA score = 18–25), EDSS = expanded disability status scale, DMT = disease-modifying therapy, platform treatment = interferon β-1a and glatiramer acetate, non-platform treatment = rituximab, ocrelizumab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and natalizumab, N/A = not applicable.
-
*
p<0.05.
-
†
Assessed based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test classification.
-
Table 1—source data 1
Clinical and demographic data of participants in the memory-guided localization (MGL) paradigm.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-table1-data1-v1.xlsx
Table 2
Demographic and clinical profiles of participants in the sequential paradigms.
| HC (n = 46) | RRMS (n = 39) | SPMS (n = 32) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (F:M) | 16:30 | 23:16 | 22:10 | <0.008* |
| Age (year) | 30.5 ± 10.37 | 32.03 ± 6.72 | 39.00 ± 6.43 | <10–6* |
| Education (years) | 16.95 ± 2.23 | 13.87 ± 3.41 | 13.67 ± 2.73 | <10–7* |
| Cognitive ability† (NL: MCI) | 42:4 | 28:11 | 18:13 | <0.003* |
| Disease duration (years) | N/A | 6.60 ± 3.84 | 9.37 ± 4.43 | <0.007* |
| EDSS | N/A | 1.49 ± 1.01 | 3.86 ± 1.74 | <10–7* |
| DMT (platform: non-platform) | N/A | 5:34 | 1:31 | 0.14 |
-
All data, except for the categorical information, are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
-
One MoCA value in the SPMS group is missing. Gender, cognitive ability, and DMT were compared using the chi-square test. Age and education were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis H test. Disease duration and EDSS score were compared using an independent-sample t-test and Mann–Whitney U test, respectively. Dunn’s post hoc test was performed following significant results of age and education, and the adjusted p-value following Bonferroni correction for multiple tests are reported: Age: healthy vs. RRMS: p=0.27, healthy vs. SPMS: p<10–6*, and RRMS vs. SPMS: p<0.005*. Education: healthy vs. RRMS: p<10–5*, healthy vs. SPMS: p<10–5*, and RRMS vs. SPMS: p=1.
-
HC = healthy control, RRMS = relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, SPMS = secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, NL = normal (MoCA score ≥26), MCI = mild cognitive impairment (MoCA score = 18–25), EDSS = expanded disability status scale, DMT = disease-modifying therapy, platform treatment = interferon β-1a and glatiramer acetate, non-platform treatment = rituximab, ocrelizumab, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and natalizumab, N/A = ot applicable.
-
*
p<0.05.
-
†
Assessed based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test classification.
-
Table 2—source data 1
Clinical and demographic data of participants in the sequential paradigms.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-table2-data1-v1.xlsx
Additional files
-
Supplementary file 1
Hierarchical regression analysis for the MGL paradigm.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-supp1-v1.docx
-
Supplementary file 2
Statistical results of reaction time for the MGL paradigm.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-supp2-v1.docx
-
Supplementary file 3
Hierarchical regression analysis for the sequential paradigm with 3 bar, high memory load condition.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-supp3-v1.docx
-
Supplementary file 4
Statistical results of reaction time for the sequential paradigms (3 bar and 1 bar).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-supp4-v1.docx
-
Supplementary file 5
Hierarchical regression analysis for the sequential paradigm with 1 bar, low memory load condition.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-supp5-v1.docx
-
MDAR checklist
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-mdarchecklist1-v1.docx
-
Source data 1
Psychophysics data of participants in the MGL paradigm.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-data1-v1.xlsx
-
Source data 2
Psychophysics data of participants in the sequential paradigm with 3 bar.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-data2-v1.xlsx
-
Source data 3
Psychophysics data of participants in the sequential paradigm with 1 bar.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/87442/elife-87442-data3-v1.xlsx
