Saccadic Eye Movement in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Neuropsychology review 2022-06, Vol.32 (2), p.193-227
• Main Authors: Opwonya, Julius, Doan, Dieu Ni Thi, Kim, Seul Gee, Kim, Joong Il, Ku, Boncho, Kim, Soochan, Park, Sunju, Kim, Jaeuk U.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Advertising executives; Alzheimer Disease - diagnosis; Alzheimer's disease; Analysis; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Cognitive ability; Cognitive Dysfunction - diagnosis; Dementia; Dementia disorders; Development and progression; Eye movements; Humans; Latency; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Meta-analysis; Neurodegenerative diseases; Neurology; Neuropsychology; Neurosciences; Review; Saccades; Saccadic eye movements; Systematic review
• ISSN: 1040-7308; 1573-6660; 1573-6660
• DOI: 10.1007/s11065-021-09495-3

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is considered the transitional state to AD dementia (ADD) and other types of dementia, whose symptoms are accompanied by altered eye movement. In this work, we reviewed the existing literature and conducted a meta-analysis to extract relevant eye movement parameters that are significantly altered owing to ADD and MCI. We conducted a systematic review of 35 eligible original publications in saccade paradigms and a meta-analysis of 27 articles with specified task conditions, which used mainly gap and overlap conditions in both prosaccade and antisaccade paradigms. The meta-analysis revealed that prosaccade and antisaccade latencies and frequency of antisaccade errors showed significant alterations for both MCI and ADD. First, both prosaccade and antisaccade paradigms differentiated patients with ADD and MCI from controls, however, antisaccade paradigms was more effective than prosaccade paradigms in distinguishing patients from controls. Second, during prosaccade in the gap and overlap conditions, patients with ADD had significantly longer latencies than patients with MCI, and the trend was similar during antisaccade in the gap condition as patients with ADD had significantly more errors than patients with MCI. The anti-effect magnitude was similar between controls and patients, and the magnitude of the latency of the gap effect varied among healthy controls and MCI and ADD subjects, but the effect size of the latency remained large in both patients. These findings suggest that, using gap effect, anti-effect, and specific choices of saccade paradigms and conditions, distinctions could be made between MCI and ADD patients as well as between patients and controls.