Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:54:45.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Target-related distractors disrupt object selection in everyday action: Evidence from participants with dementia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2010

TANIA GIOVANNETTI ,
BRIANNE MAGOUIRK BETTCHER ,
LAURA BRENNAN ,
DAVID J. LIBON ,
DENENE WAMBACH  and
COLETTE SETER
TANIA GIOVANNETTI*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
BRIANNE MAGOUIRK BETTCHER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
LAURA BRENNAN
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
DAVID J. LIBON
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
DENENE WAMBACH
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
COLETTE SETER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Tania Giovannetti, Ph.D., Temple University, Psychology Department, 1701 N. 13th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122. E-mail: tgio@temple.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study evaluated the impact of distractor objects and their similarity to target objects on everyday task performance in dementia. Twenty participants with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (n = 12) or subcortical vascular disease (n = 8) were videotaped while they performed 3 discrete tasks: (1) make a cup of coffee, (2) wrap a gift, and (3) pack a lunch under two conditions that were counterbalanced across participants. The conditions differed in terms of the type of distractor objects included in the workspace: (1) Target-Related Distractor Condition - distractor objects were functionally and visually similar to target objects (e.g., salt for sugar) (2) Unrelated Distractor Condition - distractors were neither visually nor functionally similar to targets (e.g., glue for sugar). Participants touched (t = 4.19; p < .01) and used (z = 3.00; p < .01) significantly more distractors, made more distractor errors (i.e., substitutions; t = 2.93; p < .01), and took longer to complete tasks (t = 2.27; p < .05) in the Target-Related Distractor condition. The percent of steps accomplished and non-distractor errors did not differ across conditions (t < 1.26; p > .05 for both). In summary, distractors that were similar to targets elicited significant interference effects circumscribed to object selection. (JINS, 2010, 16, 484–494.)

Keywords

Activities of daily livingIdeational apraxiaRehabilitationAlzheimer’s diseaseInhibitionHuman activities
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , May 2010 , pp. 484 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Bickerton, W.L., Humphreys, G.W., & Riddoch, M.J. (2007). The case of the unfamiliar implement: Schema-based over-riding of semantic knowledge from objects in everyday action. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 1035–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bichot, N.P., & Schall, J.D. (1999). Effects of similarity and history on neural mechanisms of visual selection. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 549–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botvinick, M.M., Buxbaum, L.J., Bylsma, L.M., & Jax, S.A. (2009). Toward an integrated account of object and action selection: A computational analysis and empirical findings from reaching-to-grasp and tool use. Neuropsychologia, 47, 671–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buxbaum, L.J., Schwartz, M.F., Carew, T.G. (1997). The role of semantic memory in object use. Cognitive Neuropsychology 14, 219–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxbaum, L., Schwartz, M., & Montgomery, M. (1998). Ideational apraxia and naturalistic action. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 617–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chui, H.C., Victoroff, J.I., Margolin, D., Jagust, W., Shankle, R., & Katzman, R. (1992). Criteria for the diagnosis of ischemic vascular dementia proposed by the State of California Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnostic and Treatment Centers. Neurology, 42(Pt 1), 473–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.P. (2007). Tool use and related errors in ideational apraxia: The quantitative simulation of patient error profiles. Cortex, 43, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, R., & Shallice, T. (2000). Contention scheduling and the control of routine activities. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 297–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, R.P., Schwartz, M.F., Yule, P., & Shallice, T. (2005). The simulation of action disorganisation in complex activities of daily living. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 959–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, J. (1986). Disorganization of behaviour after frontal lobe damage. Cognitive Neuropychology, 3, 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folstein, M., Folstein, S., & McHugh, P. (1975). Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuster, J.M. (1989). The prefrontal cortex (2nd ed.). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Giovannetti, T., Buxbaum, L.J., Biran, I., & Chatterjee, A. (2005). Reduced endogenous control in alien hand syndrome: evidence from naturalistic action. Neuropsychologia, 43, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giovannetti, T., Libon, D.J., Brennan, L., Bettcher, B.M., Sestito, N., & Kessler, R.K. (2007). Environmental adaptations improve everyday action performance in Alzheimer’s disease: Empirical support from performance-based assessment. Neuropsychology, 21, 448–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giovannetti, T., Libon, D.J., Buxbaum, L.J., & Schwartz, M.F. (2002). Naturalistic action impairments in dementia. Neuopsychologia, 40, 1220–1232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giovannetti, T., Libon, D.J., & Hart, T. (2002). Awareness and correction of naturalistic action errors in dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 633–644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giovannetti, T., Schmidt, K., Sestito, N., Libon, D.J., & Gallo, J. (2006). Everyday action in dementia: Evidence for differential deficits in Alzheimer’s disease versus subcortical vascular dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 12, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giovannetti, T., Schwartz, M.F., & Buxbaum, L.J. (2007). The coffee challenge: A new method for the study of everyday action errors. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 690–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, H.H., & Rayner, K. (2001). Eye movements and familiarity effects in visual search. Vision Research, 41, 3763–3773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphreys, G.W., & Forde, E.M.E. (1998). Disordered action schema and action disorganisation syndrome. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 771–811.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Locke, E.A., Saari, L.M., Shaw, K.N., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task-performance - 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luria, A.R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Katzman, R., Price, D., & Stadlan, E.M. (1984). Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology, 34, 939–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niki, C., Maruyama, T., Muragaki, Y., & Kumada, T. (2009). Disinhibition of sequential actions following right frontal lobe damage. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 266–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, D.A., & Shallice, T. (1980). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. San Diego: University of California.Google Scholar
Pavese, A., & Buxbaum, L.J. (2002). Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Visual Cognition, 9, 559–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, M.F., Buxbaum, L.J., Ferraro, M., Veramonti, T., & Segal, M. (2003). The naturalistic action test. Bury St. Edmunds, UK: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M.F., Buxbaum, L.J., Montgomery, M.W., Fitzpatrick-DeSalme, E., Hart, T., Ferraro, M., et al. . (1999). Naturalistic action production following right hemisphere stroke. Neuropsychologia, 37, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, M.F., Montgomery, M.W., Buxbaum, L.J., Lee, S.S., Carew, T.G., Coslett, H.B., et al. . (1998). Naturalistic action impairment in closed head injury. Neuropsychology, 12, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, M.F., Segal, M.E., Veramonti, T., Ferraro, M., & Buxbaum, L.J. (2002). The naturalistic action test: A standardised assessment for everyday-action impairment. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 12, 311–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegal, S., & Castellan, N. (1998). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sirigu, A., Zalla, T., Pillon, B., Grafman, J., Agid, Y., & Dubois, B. (1995). Selective impairments in managerial knowledge following pre-frontal cortex damage. Cortex, 31, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed