�ݺ�ߣ

REVIEW TABLE
Study Subjects Methodology Results
number
of
ADP*
age
of
ADP
age
of
CS*
severity
of
AD
number
of
stimuli
frequency
of
stimuli
exposure-
number
of stimuli
orienting task time-limit
(study-
phase)
time-limit
(test-
phase)
time
of
delay*
completion
of
stems
priming
Shimamura et al
(1987)
8 72 69.6 mld* to
mod*
2 ls* of
10 ws*
_ 1 rating likeability _ _ _ oral impaired
Salmon et al
(1988)
13 71.2 66.6 mld to
mod
2 ls of
10 ws
Heindel et al
(1989)
16 74.3 71.3 --- 2 ls of
10 ws
Randolph
(1991)
10 75.2 77.7 --- 10 ws _ 3 rating likeability _ _ _ written impaired
Bondi & Kaszniak
(1991)
Keane & Gabrieli
(1991)
10 70.5 68.2 mld to
sev*
2 ls of
10 ws
low-fre*
high fre
1 for ls 1
3 for ls 2
rating likeability _ 4 secs _ oral impaired
Bondi & Kaszniak
(1993)
Burke et al
(1994)
20 79.40 78.05 --- 2 ls of
10 ws
_ 2 1.rating likeability
2.producing definitons
_ _ _ written impaired
Gabrieli et al
(1994)
15 68.3 63.1 mld to
sev
6 ls of
20 ws
_ 1 1.letter condition
2.semantic condition
3.intentional condition
_ _ _ oral impaired
Carlesimo et al
(1995)
11 63.8 66.5 --- 20 ws _ 1 rating likeability _ 5 secs _ written impaired
Fleischman & Gabrieli
(1999)
91 75.6 YCS*:
21.8
OCS*:
75.8
very mld
to
mod
3 ls of
30 ws
_ 1 1.reading
2.reading and rating
3.generating from
definitions
_ 30 secs _ oral impaired
(intact for
very mild
AD)
Grosse et al
(1990)
12 72.3 73 --- 8 bl* of
10 s-f*
_ 1 sentence-frame
comletion
_ _ _ written intact
Partridge et al
(1990)
15 82.57 83.06 mld to
sev
10 ws high-fre 2 providing meaning _ _ _ oral intact
Scott et al
(1991)
14 78.64 77.36 --- 2 ls of
12 ws
_ 1 1.giving a meaningfully
related word
2.pronouncing a letter
within the word
5 secs _ 15 secs written intact

Russo & Spinler
(1994)
12 71.8 72.3 --- 2 ls of
10 ws
_ 2 1.rating likeability
2.providing meaning
5 secs 5 secs 10 mins oral intact
Deweer et al
(1994)
OP*:17
IN*:13
OP:73.6
IN:80.2
73.4 --- 10 ws _ 3 rating likeability _ _ _ oral intact
Huberman & Moscovitch
(1994)
7 74.4 67.5 --- 16 ws _ 1 reading and attending 3 secs _ _ oral nearly intact
(under conditions)
Fleischman et al
(1997)
28 72.8 71.5 mod 16 ws _ 1 1.reading aloud
2.generating by
meaning
30 secs _ _ oral intact
(greater for the
reading condition)
Park et al
(1998)
16 70.8 71.8 --- 8 items _ 1 1.reading aloud
2.picture-naming
_ _ _ oral intact
Koivisto et al
(1998)
14 69.3 68.2 --- 42 ws _ 1 reading aloud 4 secs _ _ oral intact
Landrum & Radtke
(1990)
14 mld:74
mod:85.1
73.4 mild
to
mod
2 ls of
20 ws
1.low-fre
2.high-fre
1 studying and answering
questions
5 secs 30 secs _ oral intact for mild ADP
impaired for mod ADP
Christensen et al
(1992)
44 mld:69.81
mod:70.54
sev:68.8
69.72 1.mild
2.mod
3.sev
10 ws _ 1 making sentences _ _ _ oral intact for mild ADP
impaired for mod to
sev ADP
Perani et al
(1992)
18 64.72 47.5 mild
to mod
5 ls of
10 ws
_ 1 learning each word
auditorily prsented
2 secs _ 20 secs oral intact for half ADP
Randolph et al
(1995)
21 65.3 65.3 --- 2 ls of
10 ws
_ 1 for ls 1
4 for ls 2
rating likeability _ _ _ oral impaired for one exs*
intact for four exs
Downes et al
(1996)
7 67.56 66.12 mld
to
mod
2 ls of
10 ws
2 ls of
40 ws
_ 1 exp*1:rating likeability
exp2:1.reading aloud
2.rating
likeability
exp1:
5 secs
exp2:
a) -
b)4 secs
exp1: -
exp2:
10 secs
exp1:
short
interval
exp2:
2 mins
oral exp1:impaired
exp2:intact for task 1
impaired for task 2
Abbreviations
ADP*: Alzheimer's patients mld*: mild bl*: block --- : no information available Note: The term "time of delay*"
CS*: controls mod*: moderate s-f*: sentence-frame indicates the interval between study
AD*: Alzheimer's disease sev*: severe exs*: exposure and test-phase of stem-completion
OP*: outpatients ls*: list exp*: experiment
IN*: institutionilised patients ws*: words fre*:frequency

�ݺ�ߣ

REVIEW TABLE

More Related Content

REVIEW TABLE