ライフサイエンスコーパス: verbal learning

1 emic achievement, visuospatial reasoning, or verbal learning.

2 ic deficit in the early processing stages of verbal learning.

3 We now extend that finding to human verbal learning.

4 with the cognitive PC related to visual and verbal learning.

5 term memory, cognitive processing speed, and verbal learning.

6 related with improvements in both design and verbal learning 12 months postoperatively.

7 ficulty to estimate each individual's latent verbal learning ability on a single scale.

8 , higher IL-1B at baseline related to poorer verbal learning across both time points and delayed reca

9 satory changes in cerebral activation during verbal learning after sleep deprivation and implicate th

10 ioning, working memory, processing speed and verbal learning (all p < 0.001).

11 auditory-based TCT predicts improvements in verbal learning and clinical symptom reduction following

12 rformance compared with controls on tests of verbal learning and fluency, while bipolar probands show

13 that group-based singing is associated with verbal learning and induces functional neuroplasticity c

14 cifically, the cognitive domains represented verbal learning and memory (p = 0.0091, B = -0.044) and

15 cifically, the cognitive domains represented verbal learning and memory (p = 0.0091, beta = -0.044) a

16 Verbal learning and memory and attention are most consis

17 -based measures of verbal working memory and verbal learning and memory and is significantly associat

18 Verbal learning and memory deficits are among the most s

19 ex, smoking, and cardiovascular disease with verbal learning and memory function.

20 would attenuate ketamine-induced deficits in verbal learning and memory in humans.

21 AVLT) is a commonly used tool for evaluating verbal learning and memory in neuropsychological assessm

22 greater decline in social functioning, lower verbal learning and memory performance, slower speed of

23 sures of global cognition, set shifting, and verbal learning and memory relative to ND.

24 ren with OSAS, which correlates with a lower verbal learning and memory score.

25 n = 42) performed a dual-task paradigm and a verbal learning and memory test during and out of sympto

26 erformed significantly better on measures of verbal learning and memory than did those who had never

27 received iron performed better on a test of verbal learning and memory than girls in the control gro

28 moking and cardiovascular disease may impact verbal learning and memory throughout adulthood differen

29 Tests of processing speed and verbal learning and memory were most sensitive in discri

30 ine performance in verbal working memory and verbal learning and memory, accounting for 7% of the var

31 ol, evaluating information processing speed, verbal learning and memory, visual learning and memory,

32 global cognition, verbal working memory, and verbal learning and memory.

33 t small, declines in executive functions and verbal learning and memory.

34 hapter focuses on recent research concerning verbal learning and memory.

35 lescent girls, iron supplementation improved verbal learning and memory.

36 elated with cognitive functioning, including verbal learning and memory.

37 ted cognitive training (TCT) aims to enhance verbal learning and other domains of cognitive functioni

38 THC may underlie the effects of C. sativa on verbal learning and psychotic symptoms, respectively.

39 ssed on ketamine-induced: (1) impairments in verbal learning and recall measured by the Hopkins Verba

40 We now show that LPS specifically impaired verbal learning and recall, hippocampal memory processes

41 processing speed, visual working memory and verbal learning and recall.

42 itive tests measuring executive function and verbal learning and recall.

43 ed improvements most robustly in measures of verbal learning and short-term memory function.

44 ificantly reduced scores on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning and Stroop Color-Word tests (indicative

45 we pooled data from both groups and analysed verbal learning and task-based fMRI activation of two no

46 . sativa acts in the human brain to modulate verbal learning and to induce psychotic symptoms.

47 males on social cognition, processing speed, verbal learning and visual learning.

48 cognition, processing speed, working memory, verbal learning and visual learning.

49 ed: verbal memory (VM), visual memory (VsM), verbal learning, and executive function.

50 visual selective attention, working memory, verbal learning, and executive functioning), were genera

51 s including IQ, five measures for visual and verbal learning, and fifteen measures for semantic, work

52 We find that intelligence, verbal learning, and memory decline at a critical period

53 al cognitive domains of attention/vigilance, verbal learning, and social cognition; however, neither

54 t was observed for MCCB speed of processing, verbal learning, and visual learning and UPSA total scor

55 e flexibility, immediate and delayed recall, verbal learning, and visuomotor coordination were variab

56 nctional decline, and (d) subtle declines in verbal learning appear to precede clinical Alzheimer's d

57 CT) of MMN and P3a predicted improvements in verbal learning as well as decreases in the severity of

58 ovement, including measures of nonverbal IQ, verbal learning, autism symptoms, motor skills, adaptive

59 (beta = - 0.12; 95% CI - 0.24, - 0.006) and verbal learning (beta = - 0.14; 95% CI - 0.28, - 0.01) a

60 f sustained attention (beta = 0.11; P<.001), verbal learning (beta = -1.51; P = .003), and visual-spa

61 AQP4 variant, which was also associated with verbal learning capacity change.

62 n diffusivity mediates the impact of OSAS on verbal learning capacity.

63 , executive functioning, working memory, and verbal learning compared to healthy individuals.

64 holinergic medication improved the scores in verbal learning (d=0.77, 95% CI=0.44, 1.1), working memo

65 rder to expand on their previous findings of verbal learning deficits in these patients and to unders

66 Non-Verbal Learning Disability (NVLD) is a neurodevelopmenta

67 ified between the rs817826 SNP at 9q31.2 and verbal learning discrimination (p = 2.71 x 10(- 9)).

68 e Buschke Selective Reminding Test to assess verbal learning during a 5-hour period after placebo or

69 ib or placebo in neurocognitive functions of verbal learning, executive function, attention, working

70 n was also present when examining decline in verbal learning from 3 months to 1 year post-resection (

71 g: Hedges g = -1.16; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.98; verbal learning: Hedges g = -1.08; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.8

72 lined by about 30%; performance on a test of verbal learning improved by about 100% during treatment

73 ep deprivation on cerebral activation during verbal learning in normal young volunteers.

74 ively correlated significantly with improved verbal learning in patients with left temporal lobe epil

75 events, trauma, disordered thought content, verbal learning, information processing speed, and famil

76 cutive function (Groton Maze Learning test), verbal learning (International Shopping List test), and

77 Verbal learning is accompanied by specific response decr

78 ith placebo occurred at final assessment for verbal learning (least squares mean difference=5.5, SE=1

79 avioral paradigm to test memory performance [verbal learning memory test (VLMT)] with state of the ar

80 logical domains of attention/working memory, verbal learning/memory and novel problem solving.

81 ed processing speed, executive function, and verbal learning/memory in survivors compared with contro

82 Attention/working memory, verbal learning/memory, and complex processing speed wer

83 l State examination; four cognitive factors: verbal learning/memory, auditory attention/working memor

84 n, (5) sensory-perceptual processing and (6) verbal learning/memory.

85 ning on a Virtual Morris Water Maze task and verbal learning on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test

86 apid visual information processing task) and verbal learning (on the California Verbal Learning Test)

87 o -0.18, Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.007) and verbal learning outcomes (B = -0.36, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.

88 as poorer in RIRP than controls on a test of verbal learning (p=0.022) and of fine co-ordination of t

89 ction, language, executive function, memory, verbal learning, perceptual organization and visuomotor

90 ted with significantly greater decrements in verbal learning performance in the hippocampus (r = -0.5

91 eractions in that smoking is associated with verbal learning performance more in women and cardiovasc

92 Understanding how experience-based and verbal learning processes interact is key for understand

93 This highlights how experience-based and verbal learning processes interact to support adaptive b

94 Cannabis sativa use can impair verbal learning, provoke acute psychosis, and increase t

95 attention/vigilance (r = -0.44, p = 0.004), verbal learning (r = -0.44, p = 0.004), total MCCB score

96 e attention/vigilance (r = -0.39, p = 0.03), verbal learning (r = -0.55, p = 0.001), total MCCB score

97 ith scores on cognitive measures of episodic verbal learning (r = 0.30, P < 0.05).

98 een serological anticholinergic activity and verbal learning (r=-0.26, 95% CI=-0.38, -0.14), working

99 al cognition (r=-0.37, 95% CI=-0.48, -0.25), verbal learning (r=-0.28, 95% CI=-0.36, -0.21), visual l

100 significant improvement in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning (RAVL) test immediate recall (p < 0.001)

101 subjects on rapid visuomotor sequencing and verbal learning/recall.

102 ing in early auditory processes and auditory-verbal learning results in substantial gains in verbal c

103 l measures (p values >0.5); however, a lower verbal learning score correlated with lower dentate gyru

104 WAIS-R IQ, verbal fluency, and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning scores at first illness episode.

105 riences (CS-US pairings) affected subsequent verbal learning, searching for lingering threat signals

106 he tau pathology, the greater the decline in verbal learning (Spearman correlation, r = -0.63), recal

107 been thought that propensities for visual or verbal learning styles influence how children acquire kn

108 ression, performed worse on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task (p < 0.05), and had a markedly lowe

109 ropsychological battery, or performance on a verbal learning task administered during [(18)F]fluorode

110 or relative glucose metabolic rates during a verbal learning task and for relative gray matter volume

111 ociation of greater RHI exposure with poorer verbal learning task performance.

112 Performance in the verbal learning task was not significantly modulated by

113 ange in delayed verbal recall on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Task.

114 dy was to link scores across common auditory verbal learning tasks (AVLTs).

115 s, and these groups also performed better on verbal learning tasks.

116 difficult auditory-verbal working memory and verbal learning tasks.

117 , prepulse inhibition (5p15), the California Verbal Learning Test (8q24), the degraded-stimulus Conti

118 we assessed memory tasks with low (Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) discriminability), moderate

119 mposite score, summed scores to the Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) trials 1-5, and functional b

120 Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM), Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), digit symbol (DS) subtest,

121 ests administered were Brief Spanish-English Verbal Learning Test (B-SEVLT) Sum, B-SEVLT Recall, word

122 nces across neurocognitive tests [California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT trials 1-5,CVLT delayed recal

123 = -0.50; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.21), California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) (g = -0.50; 95% CI, -0.64 to

124 ncluding the primary outcome, the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), at baseline and 24 mo.

125 verbal memory, immediate recall [California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), List A; prediction II: beta

126 aseline correlated with increased California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT)-II scores.

127 Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R) and California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT).

128 ore on the delayed portion of the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT).

129 s (TICSm) and the telephone-based California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT).

130 obiographical Memory Test and the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT).

131 Results on Brief-Spanish English Verbal Learning Test (episodic learning and memory), and

132 -0.53; 95% CI, -0.77 to -0.28), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (g = -0.50; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.21)

133 t baseline and endpoint by using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) and subscales of the Kaufman

134 ate better function) and the revised Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT-R; 12-item word list recall t

135 memory impairment as assessed by the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (P<.05).

136 Subscale (ADAS-Cog 13) and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) and volume of brain regions

137 , amygdala brain areas, and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) as top distinguished featur

138 +/- 4 y) through the use of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) for verbal memory, the Digi

139 The Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) is a commonly used tool for

140 ; worse forgetting score on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) over time [p = 0.02, beta +

141 ubstitution Test (DSST) and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) tasks, while depressive sym

142 SST), modified Stroop test, and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) were completed at year 25.

143 rtiary outcomes were changes in Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Beck Depression Inventory-

144 ymbol Substitution Test (DSST), Rey-Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Stroop, category fluency,

145 oning; measures included the Spanish-English Verbal Learning Test (SEVLT) Learning and Delayed Recall

146 ater hippocampal volumes and better Auditory Verbal Learning Test 30-minute delay and Trail Making Te

147 nd persisting verbal (mean [SE] Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test [RAVLT], delayed recall: patients,

148 titution Test, Stroop Test, and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test analyzed with standardized z scores

149 signments were confirmed with the California Verbal Learning Test and degraded-stimulus Continuous Pe

150 and neurocognitive test scores (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Groton Maze Learning Test).

151 ularly, poor performance on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Montreal Cognitive Assessment w

152 ssessed verbal memory using the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and nonverbal memory using the Brie

153 85, 95% CI=0.76 to 0.96) and higher auditory verbal learning test delay score (RR=0.86, 95% CI=0.77 t

154 ual reproduction delayed recall and auditory verbal learning test delayed recall) were used to genera

155 s measures of general cognition and Auditory-Verbal Learning Test delayed recall, Boston naming and T

156 Subjects performed a serial verbal learning test during (18)F-deoxyglucose uptake.

157 Subjects performed a serial verbal learning test during the [(18)F]-fluorodeoxygluco

158 d 32 control subjects who performed a serial verbal learning test during tracer uptake.

159 al Memory Test-Revised (BVMT) and California Verbal Learning Test II (CVLT).

160 Results for the California Verbal Learning Test indicated improved learning for bot

161 g adults (18-32 years old) on the California Verbal Learning Test Long Delay Free Recall test.

162 apparent differences on either Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test or Boston Naming Test.

163 piciousness, symbol coding test performance, verbal learning test performance, decline in social func

164 io was associated with postoperative Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Retention [Z score = 8.351; age, se

165 ad normal but significantly lower California Verbal Learning Test scores compared with control partic

166 Hippocampal volume, age, California Verbal Learning Test scores, and the number of grade 3 (

167 arning and memory (the Brief-Spanish English Verbal Learning Test Sum of Trials and Delayed Recall),

168 rieth Complex Figure Test and the California Verbal Learning Test to compare memory functioning of 37

169 task) and verbal learning (on the California Verbal Learning Test) as the best indicators of manic pe

170 ory decline (assessed using the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test) occurred in 4 participants (36%) a

171 upraspan memory (trial 1 in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning test) was investigated in patients diagn

172 ocabulary Test), verbal memory (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test), processing speed (Wechsler Adult

173 rwent testing of verbal memory (Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test), visual-spatial memory (Medical Co

174 sts (two 15-item lists from the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test).

175 5% CI, 0.25 to 1.19; P = .003), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.29; P = .0

176 iative States Scale, verbal fluency, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, a biphasic alcohol effects scale,

177 , 1.56 (1.13-2.14), but not the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, adjusted for age, race, sex, educa

178 (-0.38 to 0.25; p=0.69) for the Rey auditory verbal learning test, and 0.01 (-0.26 to 0.29; p=0.92) f

179 niversity of California-Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and global cognition was assessed

180 ing, memory assessment with the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and mood ratings with the Beck Dep

181 ask, Word Fluency Test, Stroop test, 15-word Verbal Learning Test, and Purdue Pegboard Test) and comp

182 trail-making A and B tests, the Rey auditory verbal learning test, and the grooved pegboard test.

183 Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and the modified Stroop test were

184 task and verbal learning on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, but not recall memory.

185 included the Trail Making Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Digit Span and Montreal Cognitive

186 episodic memory assessment by the California Verbal Learning Test, including measures of immediate fr

187 llowing memory and mood measures: California Verbal Learning Test, recall of the Rey-Osterrieth Compl

188 ognitive function (verbal memory [California Verbal Learning Test, second edition] and IQ [Wechsler A

189 (Degraded Stimulus version), the California Verbal Learning Test, the Letter-Number Sequencing test,

190 Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, verbal fluency, and independent ac

191 scale, Insomnia Severity Index, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-

192 Block Test, Digit Span Test, Rey's Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Word Learning Lists from the CERAD

193 nd ten-minute delayed recall) with Rey Audio-Verbal Learning test, Working memory with forward and ba

194 igit Modalities Test (p = 0.010), California Verbal Learning Test-II (p = 0.030), and EDSS (p = 0.001

195 Symbol Digit Modalities Test, the California Verbal Learning Test-II, the Brief Visuospatial Memory T

196 Symbol Digit Modalities Test and California Verbal Learning Test-II, were used to assess clinical di

197 (g = -1.17; 95% CI, -1.86 to -0.48), Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (g = -0.86; 95% CI, -1.43 t

198 iate recall (primary outcome) on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) and other cognitiv

199 gn, randomized phase II) and 6-month Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) Delayed Recall (DR

200 mination (3MS) for global cognition, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) for memory, Symbol

201 oint drop compared with baseline) in Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) total recall at 4

202 mplex Figure [immediate recall], and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised [delayed recall]) and proce

203 who underwent assessments of memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised [HVLT-R]), attention and ex

204 The primary end point was the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised Delayed Recall (HVLT-R DR)

205 We analysed the primary outcome, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised delayed verbal recall (HVLT

206 he T-score for delayed recall on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, -0.9+/-1.1 in the ketamine

207 NCF tests (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, Trail Making Test, and Con

208 ayed verbal recall measured with the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised.

209 e from baseline to week 16 in the California Verbal Learning Test-second edition short-form (CVLT-II-

210 ber Span test and scales from the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition, the Wechsler Memory

211 (Pearson r = 0.58; P < .01) and the Auditory Verbal Learning Test-Total Learning (Pearson r = 0.33; P

212 t, a verbal fluency task, and the California Verbal Learning Test.

213 lucose F 18, all patients performed a serial verbal learning test.

214 h Toolbox, Little Man Task, and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

215 recall component of the of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

216 Memory was assessed using the Rey auditory verbal learning test.

217 ured by the retention measure in the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test.

218 essment Battery for Children and the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test.

219 n Test (DSST), Stroop test, and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

220 learning and recall measured by the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test; (2) impairments in working memory

221 ubstitution (processing speed), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning (verbal memory), and Stroop (executive f

222 impairment in executive functions including verbal learning, verbal memory, and information processi

223 ignificant strengths in verbal intelligence, verbal learning, verbal memory, and reading, and signifi

224 gher sCD14 levels were associated with worse verbal learning, verbal memory, executive function, and

225 ted with worse overall performance and worse verbal learning, verbal memory, executive function, psyc

226 Verbal learning was more impaired the greater the atroph

227 fect in nonsmoking subjects, particularly in verbal learning, working memory, and attention.