Cited by 314Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Evidence for continuing neuropsychological impairments in depression

Weiland-Fiedler, Petra, Erickson, Kristine, Waldeck, Tracy, Luckenbaugh, David A., Pike, Daniel, Bonne, Omer, Charney, Dennis S., Neumeister, Alexander·2004·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Neuropsychological deficits have been reported in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) during an acute episode of MDD. Little is known whether these abnormalities persist when patients are remitted. The purpose of the present study was to describe the neuropsychological functioning of fully remitted, unmedicated patients with a history of MDD by focusing on tasks related to prefrontal cortex functioning.Methods Twenty-eight young to middle-aged, unmedicated, fully remitted patients with MDD were compared to 23 healthy control subjects on tasks from the Cambridge Automated Neuropsychological Test Battery (CANTAB) and the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT).Results Patients with remitted MDD relative to controls were impaired on tasks of rapid visual information processing (RVIP), psychomotor performance and spatial working memory (SWM). After correction for residual depressive symptoms, deficits in sustained attention remained significant.Limitations CANTAB tasks are not equated for difficulty, and difficulty differences between the CANTAB tasks and the CVLT are not known.Conclusions These findings suggest deficits in sustained attention as vulnerability marker for MDD. The functional importance of this finding and the neuronal networks involved remain to be elucidated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2003.10.009

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weiland-Fiedler, P., Erickson, K., Waldeck, T., Luckenbaugh, D. A., Pike, D., Bonne, O., Charney, D. S., & Neumeister, A.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Neumeister, Alexander
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-10
Volume
82
Issue
2
Pages
253-258
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132838344
Cited by
314
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 20
FWCI
5.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
major depressive disorder, remitted depression, neuropsychological deficits, sustained attention, prefrontal cortex, spatial working memory, rapid visual information processing, psychomotor performance, vulnerability indicators, residual depressive symptoms, unmedicated patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Cognition Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychometrics, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Remission, Spontaneous, Prefrontal Cortex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review