Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Aug;31(5):381-8.
doi: 10.1177/1533317515618899. Epub 2015 Dec 24.

A Systematic Review of Metacognitive Differences Between Alzheimer's Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia

Sarah J DeLozier  1 , Deana Davalos  2
Affiliations

A Systematic Review of Metacognitive Differences Between Alzheimer's Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia

Sarah J DeLozier et al. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2016 Aug.

Abstract

Clinicians often have difficulty distinguishing between various forms of dementia to achieve a correct diagnosis. Little research has been done to examine whether awareness of one's cognitive deficits, or metacognitive monitoring, might differ between dementia diagnoses, thereby providing an additional means of differentiating between dementia subtypes. We review articles examining metacognitive comparisons between two of the most common dementia subtypes: Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. Greater monitoring deficits were apparent in frontotemporal dementia than in Alzheimer's disease, and participants with frontotemporal dementia were less likely to utilize task experience to update and improve the accuracy of subsequent monitoring judgments. Results provide evidence for the utility of metacognitive measures as a means of distinguishing between Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia.

Keywords: Alzheimer’s; anosognosia; dementia; diagnosis; frontotemporal dementia; metacognition; metamemory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
A study flow diagram of the review selection procedure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Flavell JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am Psychol. 1979;34(10):906–911.
    1. Nelson TO, Dunlosky J. When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect”. Psychol Sci. 1991;2(4):267–270.
    1. Nelson TO, Narens L. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In Bower GH, ed. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol 26. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1990:125–173.
    1. Nelson TO, Narens L. Why investigate metacognition? In Metcalfe J, Shimura APV, eds. Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1994:185–206.
    1. Nelson TO, Leonesio RJ. Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain” effect. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cog. 1988;14(4):676–686. - PubMed

Publication types