Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study examines visual-autonomic coupling during reminiscence therapy in older adults, suggesting cognitive vulnerability indicators.
Introduction: Subtle changes in attention and emotion characterize early cognitive decline. In Asian elders, where family is central, culturally tailored reminiscence therapy (RT)-inspired visual stimulation may amplify autobiographical engagement. We aimed to determine whether visual–autonomic coupling, assessed through eye-tracking and galvanic skin response (GSR), serves as a sensitive physiological indicator of cognitive vulnerability during family-centered, RT-inspired visual stimulation. Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled 37 older adults (aged 54–92) from dementia service centers in Taiwan, stratified by clinical dementia rating (CDR) score (0, 0.5, 1). Participants viewed self-selected community and family-centered personal photos (early, ≥30 years; recent, <5 years), whereas eye-tracking and GSR were simultaneously recorded to assess visual–autonomic synchrony. Results: The normal cognition group (CDR = 0) showed significantly larger pupil diameters, especially for recent personal photos (3.56 ± 0.87 mm), compared to CDR = 0.5 (2.64 ± 0.52 mm) and CDR = 1 (2.97 ± 0.61 mm; P < 0.05). GSR responses exhibited sharper declines in CDR = 0.5 and blunted patterns in CDR = 1. Visual–autonomic coupling strength differed by stage: moderate in CDR = 0 ( r = 0.41–0.47), stronger in CDR = 0.5 ( r = 0.62–0.71), and minimal in CDR = 1 ( r = 0.14). Time-resolved peaks reached ρ ≈0.90 in CDR = 0. Notably, high responders showed detectable synchrony to self-relevant stimuli, suggesting residual plasticity. Conclusion: These findings indicate that pupil–GSR coupling could serve as an exploratory indicator of early cognitive vulnerability. The study supports the potential of personalized, RT-inspired visual stimulation for guiding interventions in individuals at risk of dementia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: