RESUMO
Despite the functional impact of cognitive deficit in people with psychosis, objective cognitive assessment is not typically part of routine clinical care. This is partly due to the length of traditional assessments and the need for a highly trained administrator. Brief, automated computerised assessments could help to address this issue. We present data from an evaluation of PsyCog, a computerised, non-verbal, mini battery of cognitive tests. Healthy Control (HC) (N = 135), Clinical High Risk (CHR) (N = 233), and First Episode Psychosis (FEP) (N = 301) participants from a multi-centre prospective study were assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. PsyCog was used to assess cognitive performance at baseline and at up to two follow-up timepoints. Mean total testing time was 35.95 min (SD = 2.87). Relative to HCs, effect sizes of performance impairments were medium to large in FEP patients (composite score G = 1.21, subtest range = 0.52-0.88) and small to medium in CHR patients (composite score G = 0.59, subtest range = 0.18-0.49). Site effects were minimal, and test-retest reliability of the PsyCog composite was good (ICC = 0.82-0.89), though some practice effects and differences in data completion between groups were found. The present implementation of PsyCog shows it to be a useful tool for assessing cognitive function in people with psychosis. Computerised cognitive assessments have the potential to facilitate the evaluation of cognition in psychosis in both research and in clinical care, though caution should still be taken in terms of implementation and study design.
RESUMO
The present study focused on interference in a group of patients with amnesia due to Korsakoff's syndrome (KS) within the domain of spatial memory. An object-location memory task was used in which participants first learned an array of objects on a computer screen, followed by a reconstruction of the object positions. Next a trial was given in which the same objects were presented only now in different locations. Participants had to place the objects a second time but at the new locations. This was repeated for seven pairs of baseline/interference trials. Both Korsakoff patients and matched controls did worse on the interference trials than on the baseline trials, indicating that it is difficult to relearn new spatial locations for objects that previously were remembered in other locations. When computing relative interference effects (that is the percentage change from baseline in the interference trials), Korsakoff patients were less affected than controls. It is discussed in how far interference depends on the strength of the original memories, which are markedly lower in KS patients.
