Demographic and clinical profiles of participants in the MGL paradigm

Demographic and clinical profiles of participants in the n-back paradigms

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 seconds. Following their response, visual feedback was presented. (B) In the 3-back paradigm (high memory load condition), a sequence of three colored bars was presented consecutively. Participants were asked to match the orientation of the probe bar to the previously presented bar with the same color. Visual feedback was displayed following their response. (C) The 1-back paradigm (low memory load condition) has the same structure as 3-back except for presenting one bar instead of three.

Recall error and precision of healthy control and multiple sclerosis (MS) subtypes (relapsing-remitting, RRMS and secondary progressive, SPMS) in visual WM paradigms.

(A) Recall error, (B) recall precision, (C) and reaction time as a function of distance for MGL paradigm. (D, E, and F) The same as a function of delay interval. (G) Recall error and (H) precision and (I) reaction time as a function of bar order in 3-back paradigm (left) and 1-back paradigm (right). Data are represented as mean ± SEM.

The sources of recall error in high and low memory load conditions (3-back and 1-back, respectively).

(A) Recall variability (circular standard deviation of von Mises distribution), (B) recall fidelity (probability of response around the target value), (C) misbinding error (probability of response around the non-target values), and (D) uniform error (probability of random response) for healthy control and MS subtypes in 3-back paradigm (left of each subplot) and 1-back paradigm (right of each subplot). Data are represented as mean ± SEM.

Classifying performance of visual WM paradigms in differentiating healthy control from MS and MS subtypes, and MS subtypes from each other.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve demonstrated the accuracy of (A) MGL, (B) 3-back, and (C) 1-back paradigms in distinguishing healthy control from MS patients. The precision of these paradigms in dissociating healthy control from MS subtypes (RRMS and SPMS) and MS subtypes from each other is represented as the area under curve (AUC) for (D) MGL, (E) 3-back, and (F) 1-back paradigms.