DI-UMONS : Dépôt institutionnel de l’université de Mons

Recherche transversale
Rechercher
(titres de publication, de périodique et noms de colloque inclus)
2020-12-01 - Colloque/Présentation - poster - Anglais - 1 page(s)

Invernizzi Sandra , Simoes Loureiro Isabelle , Lefebvre Laurent , "The complicated differential diagnostic between depression in late life and Alzheimer's disease and how these pathologies affect the semantic memory. A systematic review." in GCPN 2020 meeting., Bruxelles, ULB, Belgique, 2020

  • Codes CREF : Psychopathologie (DI3513), Neurosciences cognitives (DI4296), Sciences cognitives (DI4290), Psychologie cognitive (DI4211)
  • Unités de recherche UMONS : Psychologie cognitive et Neuropsychologie (P325)
  • Instituts UMONS : Institut de recherche en sciences et technologies du langage (Langage), Institut des Sciences et Technologies de la Santé (Santé)
  • Centres UMONS : Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en Psychophysiologie et Electrophysiologie de la cognition (CIPsE), Mind & Health (CREMH)
Texte intégral :

Abstract(s) :

(Anglais) The complicated differential diagnostic between depression in late life and Alzheimer's disease and how these pathologies affect the semantic memory. A systematic review Sandra Invernizzi, Isabelle Simoes Loureiro, Laurent Lefebvre Cognitive profiles of early stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Late-Life depression (LLD) show a clinical overlap, including in the memory domain. Nevertheless, the typical and ordered alteration of the semantic memory (SM) content in AD could be a distinctive element compared to LLD where it would remain intact. A systematic review was conducted assessing (1) SM in AD or LLD, (2) effects of depressive symptoms (DS) on the evolutionary path of AD and (3) effects of DS on SM impairments. Following PRISMA guidelines and the QATQS criteria for systematic review, 48 articles were selected and analysed. Competing results were highlighted on all three accounts and can be attributed to methodological differences across studies such as different DS criteria (trajectory, severity) or the choice of SM assessment methods that don’t allow the SM to be measured independently. Though frequently used to compound semantic measurement, fluency tasks are a main illustration of this confusion because of how they involve executive functions. Actually, as executive functions appear to be impaired in both pathological conditions, it emphasize the importance of identifying the functional origin of this impairment and to provide measures allowing a distinction between assessment of SM integrity and the executive processing (such as inhibition) recruited during the tasks. In conclusion, to allow a distinction between semantic profiles in LLD and AD, the functional origin of its impairment needs to be assessed. This requires (1) a methodological control of DS criteria and (2) tasks that distinctively measure SM integrity and the executive component involved in the semantic retrieval process.