Abstract
Objective To assess overlap and uniqueness of established behavioral markers of speed of processing for different aspects of visual information within a cerebrovascular disease cohort, and to examine the link between these speed of processing markers and functional behavior, specifically walking.
Methods A cohort of 161 participants with cerebrovascular disease recruited to the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI) were examined with three types of assessments: neuropsychology, saccadic eye movement and gait. Principal component analysis (PCA) and canonical correlation analysis (CCA) were performed on select variables from these assessments to reveal commonalities and discrepancies among the measures.
Results PCA analysis revealed different variable patterns between neuropsychology and saccade assessments, with the first component characterized primarily by neuropsychology, and the second and third components more influenced by the saccade assessments. CCA analysis did not reveal association between different types of assessments with the exception of a modest, but significant, positive association between speed of processing measures from the neuropsychological assessments and gait speed.
Discussion Neuropsychological tests and the pro-saccade task can be used for assessment of speed of processing for two major features of visual information, visual perception vs. spatial location. Despite a general lack of association between different types of assessments, combining gait speed as an important contributor to the models reinforces the idea of the link between speed of processing and complex function such as walking, and provides support for the importance of attending to the potential consequences of changes in speed of processing after neurologic injury.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was conducted with the support of the Ontario Brain Institute, an independent non-profit corporation, funded partially by the Ontario government. Matching funds were provided by participating hospital and research institute foundations, including the Baycrest Foundation, Bruyere Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Foundation, London Health Sciences Foundation, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Ottawa Brain and Mind Research Institute, Queens University Faculty of Health Sciences, Providence Care (Kingston), St. Michaels Hospital, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Foundation, the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, the University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, and the Windsor/Essex County ALS Association. The Temerty Family Foundation provided the major infrastructure matching funds. YC is supported by Indoc. RHS is supported by a Clinician-Scientist Phase II Award from Heart * Stroke. DPM is supported by the Canada Research Chair Program.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The research protocol was approved by Research ethics committees at all participating recruitment sites in Ontario, Canada, including Baycrest Health Sciences, Toronto; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto; Elizabeth Bruyere Hospital, Ottawa; Hamilton General Hospital, Hamilton; Hotel Dieu Hospital, Kingston; London Health Sciences Centre, London; McMaster Medical Centre, Hamilton; Parkwood Institute, London; Providence Care Hospital, Kingston; St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto; The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa; Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay; and Toronto Western Hospital (University Health Network), Toronto.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data are available on Brain-CODE.
