Assessing Proactive and Retroactive Interference in Memory: The LASSI-L Protocol
The LASSI-L was administered independently from the other cognitive tests and scales, and was not used for the diagnostic workup. The test was administered according to the following procedure: first, the examiner presents a list of 15 common words that are fruits, musical instruments and articles of clothing (five words of each category) (List A). The participant reads aloud the words, which are presented one at a time at 4-s intervals. After the 15 words are read, the examiner asked the participant to recall the words. After the free recall (60 s) (Free Recall 1A, FRA1), the semantic cue is provided (e.g., “Now I want you tell me all the words from the list that are fruits” (20 s for each category) (Cued Recall A1, CRA1). Then, List A is presented again using the same procedure, and cued recall is performed again (CRA2). Thereafter, a semantically related list (List B) with 15 common words (fruits, musical instruments and articles of clothing) is presented in the same manner. Again, a free recall (FRB1) and cued recall (CRB1) is performed. Then, the presentation of List B is once more followed by a second cued recall attempt (CRB2). After that, participants are asked to free recall the words belonging to List A (Short-delay free recall, SdFRA). This is followed by a category-cued recall trial (SdCRA). Finally, a delayed recall of all words (List A and List B) is performed 20 min later (Delayed Recall, DR). Words correctly remembered, intrusions from other list, and intrusions unrelated to the presented words were registered. The Spanish version of the LASSI-L used in United States was adapted to a Spaniard population. Three words were changed due to being largely unknown in Spain: “banana” was replaced by “plátano”, “mango” was replaced by “melón”, and “suéter” was replaced by “jersey”. The replaced words represent the same concept and/or have the same or a very similar length. A pilot study was conducted in 10 subjects to ensure understanding and applicability. The following indices were calculated:
FRA1 – FRB1, to assess the proactive interference in free recall (PI-FR).
CRA1 – CRB1, to assess the proactive interference in cued recall (PI-CR).
FRA1 – SdFRA, to assess the retroactive interference in free recall (RI-FR).
CRA1 – SdCRA, to assess the retroactive interference in cued recall (RI-CR).
CRB2 – CRB1, to assess the recovery from proactive interference (RPI).
Intrusions CB1 – Intrusions CB2, to assess the recovery of the intrusions from proactive interference (tI-RPI).
Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol. The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link:
Access Free Full Text.
Matías-Guiu J.A., Curiel R.E., Rognoni T., Valles-Salgado M., Fernández-Matarrubia M., Hariramani R., Fernández-Castro A., Moreno-Ramos T., Loewenstein D.A, & Matías-Guiu J. (2017). Validation of the Spanish Version of the LASSI-L for Diagnosing Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 56(2), 733-742.
TI-RPI (Recovery of the intrusions from proactive interference)
control variables
Presentation of word lists (one at a time, at 4-s intervals)
Free recall time (60 s)
Cued recall time (20 s per category)
Delayed recall time (20 min)
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required