The Impact of the Eye in Dementia: The Eye and its Role in Diagnosis and Follow‐up

Over the last few decades, the importance of ophthalmic examination in neurodegenerative diseases of the CNS has reportedly increased. The retina is an extension of the CNS and thus should not be surprising to find abnormal results in both the test exploring visual processing and those examining the retina of patients with CNS degeneration. Current in vivo imaging techniques are allowing ophthalmologists to detect and quantify data consistent with the histopathological findings described in the retinas of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients and may help to reveal unsuspected retinal and optic‐nerve repercussions of other CNS diseases. In this chapter, we perform an analysis of the physiological changes in ocular and cerebral ageing. We analyse the ocular manifestations in CNS disorders such as stroke, AD and Parkinson’s disease. In addition, the pathophysiology of both the eye and the visual pathway in AD are described. The value of the visual psychophysical tests in AD diagnosis is reviewed as well as the main findings of the optical coherence tomography as a contribution to the diagnosis and monitoring of the disease. Finally, we examine the association of two neurodegenerative diseases, AD and glaucoma, as mere coincidence or possible role in the progression of the neurodegeneration.

The interpretation of scholars' interpretations of confidence intervals: criticism, replication, and extension of Hoekstra et al. (2014)

Hoekstra et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2014, 21:1157–1164) surveyed the interpretation of confidence intervals (CIs) by first-year students, master students, and researchers with six items expressing misinterpretations of CIs. They asked respondents to answer all items, computed the number of items endorsed, and concluded that misinterpretation of CIs is robust across groups. Their design may have produced this outcome artifactually for reasons that we describe. This paper discusses first the two interpretations of CIs and, hence, why misinterpretation cannot be inferred from endorsement of some of the items. Next, a re-analysis of Hoekstra et al.’s data reveals some puzzling differences between first-year and master students that demand further investigation. For that purpose, we designed a replication study with an extended questionnaire including two additional items that express correct interpretations of CIs (to compare endorsement of correct vs. nominally incorrect interpretations) and we asked master students to indicate which items they would have omitted had they had the option (to distinguish deliberate from uninformed endorsement caused by the forced-response format). Results showed that incognizant first-year students endorsed correct and nominally incorrect items identically, revealing that the two item types are not differentially attractive superficially; in contrast, master students were distinctively more prone to endorsing correct items when their uninformed responses were removed, although they admitted to nescience more often that might have been expected. Implications for teaching practices are discussed.