1Teachers College,Columbia University,New York,New York.
2Cognitive Neuroscience Division,Taub Institute,Columbia University Medical Center,New York,New York.
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2018 May;24(5):498-510. doi: 10.1017/S1355617717001345. Epub 2018 Feb 5.
Emerging work reveals the neuroanatomic changes that compromise metacognition; however, little is known about the impact of premorbid factors. Research suggests that psychological variables influence the perception of cognition, but whether they influence the accuracy of those perceptions (i.e., metacognition) has not been directly examined.
Using Latent Class Analysis (LCA), we tested for discrete personality (NEOFFI) and mood (STAI, BDI-II, and GDS) classes among a community-based cohort of 151 older adults, enrolled in the NKI-Rockland study. Metamemory was calculated by comparing subjective memory ratings (modified Cognitive Failures Questionnaire) to objective memory (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test) to determine the degree to which individuals were overconfident, underconfident, or accurate in their self-assessment. A generalized linear model was used to examine whether metamemory differed across the emergent classes. A one sample t test was used to determine whether the metamemory scores of the emergent classes were statistically significantly different from zero, that is, over or under confident.
Two discrete classes emerged in the LCA: Class 1 was characterized predominantly by high extraversion and conscientiousness and low neuroticism and anxiety; Class 2 was characterized predominantly by low extraversion and conscientiousness and high neuroticism and anxiety. Metamemory differed significantly as a function of Class Membership (F(4,151)=5.42; p<.001), with Class 1 demonstrating accurate metamemory (M=0.21; SD=1.31) and Class 2 demonstrating under-confidence (M=-0.59; SD=1.39) in their memory.
The significant association between psychological factors and metamemory knowledge accuracy suggests that such characteristics may be important to consider in the conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of metacognitive disturbances. (JINS, 2018, 24, 498-510).
新的研究揭示了影响元认知的神经解剖学变化；然而，关于发病前因素的影响知之甚少。研究表明，心理变量会影响对认知的感知，但它们是否会影响对这些感知的准确性（即元认知）尚未直接检验。
使用潜在类别分析（LCA），我们在 NKI-Rockland 研究中对 151 名基于社区的老年人队列进行了离散人格（NEOFFI）和情绪（STAI、BDI-II 和 GDS）类别测试。元记忆通过比较主观记忆评分（修改后的认知失败问卷）和客观记忆（ Rey 听觉言语学习测试）来计算，以确定个体在自我评估中过度自信、不自信或准确的程度。使用广义线性模型来检验元记忆是否因新兴类别而有所不同。使用单样本 t 检验来确定新兴类别中的元记忆得分是否与零（即过度自信或不自信）存在统计学显著差异。
LCA 中出现了两个离散类别：第 1 类以高外向性和尽责性以及低神经质和焦虑为特征；第 2 类以低外向性和尽责性以及高神经质和焦虑为特征。元记忆的分类成员身份存在显著差异（F（4,151）=5.42；p<.001），第 1 类表现出准确的元记忆（M=0.21；SD=1.31），第 2 类对记忆表现出不自信（M=-0.59；SD=1.39）。
心理因素与元记忆知识准确性之间的显著关联表明，这些特征在元认知障碍的概念化、评估和治疗中可能是重要的考虑因素。（JINS，2018 年，24 期，498-510）。
