Global slowness and increased intra-individual variability are key features of attentional deficits and cognitive fluctuations in post COVID-19 patients.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 07 2022
30 07 2022
Historique:
received:
20
04
2022
accepted:
26
07
2022
entrez:
30
7
2022
pubmed:
31
7
2022
medline:
3
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fatigue, attentional deficits and cognitive fluctuations are the most characterizing symptoms of neurological involvement in Post COVID-19 syndrome (PCS). As the intraindividual variability (IIV) in cognitive performances has been recognized as a hallmark of brain-related disorders associated with cognitive deficits, it could be an interesting measure to elucidate the mechanisms subtending both the attentive impairment and the cognitive fluctuations in these patients. By referring to IIV analysis of Reaction Times (RTs), the present study aims to define the attentive impairment and its relation to fluctuations and fatigue, in patients suffering from Post COVID-19 neurological symptoms. 74 patients were enrolled. They underwent an extensive clinical and neuropsychological assessments, as well as computerized Sustained Attention and Stroop tasks. For studying IIV, RTs distributions of performances in computerized tasks were fitted with ex-Gaussian distribution, for obtaining the τ values. Finally, the Resting Motor Threshold (RMT) was also collected to estimate cortical excitability. 29 healthy volunteers served as controls. Patients showed poorer scores in Montreal Cognitive Assessment and higher RMT, in comparison with controls. In Sustained Attention Task, Mean, µ, σ and τ values were significantly higher in PCS patients (p value = < 0.0001; 0.001; 0.018 and < 0.0001, respectively). Repeated measures ANOVA comparing the RTs mean in Stroop task within-subject and between-subjects revealed significant condition and group effect (p < 0.0001 both) and significant interaction (p = 0.005), indicating worst performances in patients. The mean of the derived interference value was significantly higher in PCS patients than in controls (p = 0.036). Patients suffering from PCS show deficits in attention, both in the sustained and executive components. Both high RTs means and high IIV subtend these deficits and could explain the often-complained cognitive fluctuations in this population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35907947
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-17463-x
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-17463-x
pmc: PMC9338963
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
13123Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Aug;38:101019
pubmed: 34308300
Psychol Med. 2015 Oct;45(14):2985-97
pubmed: 26073667
BMJ. 2020 Aug 11;370:m3026
pubmed: 32784198
Arch Neurol. 1988 Apr;45(4):435-7
pubmed: 3355400
Front Neurosci. 2018 Jun 08;12:393
pubmed: 29937712
Neurology. 1992 Sep;42(9):1667-75
pubmed: 1513453
Brain Cogn. 2004 Nov;56(2):129-40
pubmed: 15518930
Dev Neuropsychol. 2006;29(3):447-58
pubmed: 16671861
Brain Res Rev. 2006 Aug;51(2):145-60
pubmed: 16530842
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Jul;6:100122
pubmed: 34027514
Brain. 2015 Jan;138(Pt 1):136-48
pubmed: 25367024
Neuropsychology. 2020 Sep 14;:
pubmed: 32924516
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021 May;30(5):733-745
pubmed: 32410131
Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 9;11(1):16144
pubmed: 34373540
Brain Cogn. 2002 Aug;49(3):402-19
pubmed: 12139961
Psychiatry Res. 1989 May;28(2):193-213
pubmed: 2748771
Clin Neurophysiol. 2000 Nov;111(11):2025-31
pubmed: 11068238
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Oct;126(10):1847-68
pubmed: 25534482
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2021 May;8(5):1073-1085
pubmed: 33755344
Arch Neurol. 1989 Oct;46(10):1121-3
pubmed: 2803071
Lancet Neurol. 2003 Mar;2(3):145-56
pubmed: 12849236
Neuropsychologia. 2007 May 15;45(9):2009-15
pubmed: 17382358
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Feb;9(2):129
pubmed: 33453162
Brain Cogn. 2014 Mar;85:251-8
pubmed: 24486386
Brain. 2003 Nov;126(Pt 11):2363-80
pubmed: 12876148
Lancet. 2004 Mar 20;363(9413):978-88
pubmed: 15043967
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Apr;22(4):e102-e107
pubmed: 34951953
JAMA. 2020 Nov 24;324(20):2031-2032
pubmed: 33175108
Trends Neurosci. 2006 Aug;29(8):474-80
pubmed: 16820224
Clin Neurophysiol. 2021 May;132(5):1138-1143
pubmed: 33774378
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Jun;126(6):1071-1107
pubmed: 25797650
Gerontology. 2004 Jan-Feb;50(1):28-34
pubmed: 14654724
Front Psychol. 2015 Jan 07;5:1548
pubmed: 25709588
Ann Intern Med. 1994 Dec 15;121(12):953-9
pubmed: 7978722
Eur J Neurol. 2022 Jun;29(6):1652-1662
pubmed: 35138693
PLoS Med. 2021 Sep 28;18(9):e1003773
pubmed: 34582441
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1991 Aug;81(4):243-50
pubmed: 1714817
J Neurol Sci. 2021 Jan 15;420:117271
pubmed: 33359928
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9
pubmed: 15817019
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Oct 1;4(10):e2130645
pubmed: 34677597
J Neurosci. 2019 Dec 11;39(50):9878-9882
pubmed: 31676604
Front Psychiatry. 2015 Jan 12;5:197
pubmed: 25628575
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2002 Mar;8(3):360-72
pubmed: 11939695
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Dec 20;20(1):1144
pubmed: 33342437
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Sep;25(1):107-16
pubmed: 15913965
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2022 Mar;28(3):281-291
pubmed: 33785084
BMJ. 2021 Jul 26;374:n1648
pubmed: 34312178
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2012;35:73-89
pubmed: 22524787
Ann Neurol. 2013 May;73(5):603-16
pubmed: 23536287
Behav Brain Res. 2016 Jan 15;297:187-95
pubmed: 26467603
Clin Neuropsychol. 2001 May;15(2):210-27
pubmed: 11528543
Front Aging Neurosci. 2014 Jul 04;6:147
pubmed: 25071556