Brain fog: The Research

View the Post on the Blog

Simon McGrath on some important recent research into cognitive deficits in ME/CFS.

outofordercut1.jpg
Brain fog is a major issue for ME/CFS patients, with 80-95% reporting memory or concentration problems. And while researchers have often found evidence of 'cognitive deficits' in laboratory testing, a surprising number of studies have failed to find deficits, leaving some to even speculate that patients' cognitive problems are more perceived than real.

Clearing away the smoke


Such inconsistent findings are almost the norm for CFS research, with similarly mixed results in many areas including biomarkers. How do you make sense of it all?


Susan Cockshell: She does all this part-time?

Step forward Susan Cockshell, a new researcher only able to work on her PhD part-time, to clear away some of the smoke. A few years ago she published a large meta-analysis on cognitive problems in CFS. A search through a thousand possible studies was eventually narrowed down to fifty 'good' ones that between them had over 1,500 CFS patients and 1,500 controls. This was a major piece of work.

A meta-analysis looks at all the studies' results as a whole, in a statistically robust way, to see if an overall effect emerges - and in this case it did. Cockshell, working with Professor Jane Mathias, found that there were substantial effects in attention, memory and Reaction Time. These fit with the memory and concentration problems reported by patients:



ME/CFS: slower reactions

What reaction time tests


Reaction time isn't just a measure of how fast you can move your muscles, but how quickly you can register information and THEN move. Think gunslingers at High Noon, who had to wait for the clock to strike before drawing (unless they cheated, of course). Susan Cockshell’s work suggests the slowdown in ME/CFS is with registering the information, not the muscle movement in response.


"This study provides objective evidence of cognitive deficits in persons with CFS, primarily in the domains of attention, memory and reaction time. In general, these deficits are consistent with those that are reported by patients... The deficits in performance are [substantial], which is likely to have an impact on day-to-day activities"

They also found issues with ‘motor functioning’, which is a measure of how quickly a muscle can respond to a command from the nervous system to move. However, verbal abilities, global functioning and cognitive flexibility and reasoning were normal, or only slightly affected, across many different studies.

Large study adds support


A large study in 2010 backed this up by demonstrating that CFS patients have substantial problems with attention, reaction time and memory. This carefully controlled experiment, with over 300 CFS patients (Fukuda definition), also looked at the effect of mood and anxiety, which are more common in CFS patients and might explain the cognitive problems. However, it found that differences in the levels of anxiety and depression could not account for the difference in cognitive performance between patients and healthy controls.


Do the Stroop & other cognitive tests


The Stroop is a quirky test of attention, with a quirky name. The simplest way to see how it works is just to look at the two lists on the right. Don’t read them, instead say the color each word is displayed in, as quickly as you can. Not so easy... Try it online!

Test your reactions



React to the green target in the Simple test. In the 'Choice' version, you are sometimes presented with a target you need to ignore, so you have to choose before reacting: Try it!

Memory: PASAT (Paced Audio Serial Addition)


Tests memory, but sometimes considered an attention task too: easier to try than to explain. Try it! More tests at the excellent Cognitive fun website

Instead, they found that the current level of fatigue and total number of symptoms explained differences between patients and controls, just as expected. They also found that patients who reported more problems with minor cognitive tasks in the previous 6 months performed less well on tests than those reporting fewer problems. In other words, patients' self-rating of cognitive difficulties matches performance in cognitive tests - indicating that the problem is not one of perception.

All of this backs up what patients have been saying for years. Except... these results are still not that clear cut. For instance, looking at fatigue in just the last 2 weeks, general fatigue scores correlated with cognitive performance, but mental fatigue did not, which is surprising. And while patients' self-rating of cognitive problems matched performance on reaction times, they did not match performance on other tests, such as memory and attention.

Just when it looks sorted...


A new and very thorough paper from Susan Cockshell throws some more light on the situation, but some of its findings add to the confusion too.

The study does some really neat things. First it checked for subject effort, to tackle the criticism that patients' poor performance might be because they weren't really trying. Well over 90% of patients were shown to be giving full effort - the same proportion as healthy controls, and strong evidence against the 'not trying hard enough' view. The few patients and controls that might not have been applying full effort were excluded from the study, leaving 50 in each group.

Like the 2010 study above, this new research controlled for psychological factors such as anxiety, and again showed that these factors made little difference to results. The new paper also confirmed the large difference in reaction time, with patients much slower than controls.

However, in some important ways the new study results conflict with earlier findings, e.g. no differences were found in either memory or concentration (though statistically, some studies will inevitably miss real effects by chance alone). For me, though, the most dramatic finding was that there was no correlation between patient-reported physical function or fatigue and cognitive performance, a very surprising result. New research from Susan Cockshell looks at this area in more detail, measuring fatigue after testing as well as before: the paper has been submitted but science publishing can move slowly so results may not appear for another 6 months.

What next?


Almost every study finds that CFS patients have slower reaction times. Most show that patients have problems with attention and memory too, and these differences cannot be explained by differences in psychological factors such as depression. And almost all studies show that there are no obvious problems with higher-level functions such as reasoning.

However, quite often no substantial effects are found for memory, attention or motor functioning, and the correlation between patient-reported problems and test performance is surprisingly weak. Several things could explain this:

  • Perhaps many of the cognitive problems are not as bad as patients believe, making the differences hard to detect, and accounting for the weak correlation with patient-reported problems. More plausibly:
  • The highly specific and artificial lab tests of cognition may not relate well to real-life mental tasks such as office work.
  • The tests may not be demanding enough to reveal differences, at least not consistently. A new fMRI brain study shows that CFS patients use more brain regions than controls just to do simple memory tasks: ie more 'brain power' is needed to produce the same effect.
  • If the issue is fatigability, rather than ongoing fatigue, then repeat or extended testing might reveal differences that a small number of single tests do not. And the new work by Susan Cockshell looking at fatigue after tests may also show up differences with controls.
  • Studies vary widely in the specific types of tests, and given the heterogeneity of CFS, they probably vary in types of patients too. This could lead to very mixed results.

Clearly more work is needed to pin down the nature of cognitive problems in CFS, and the mismatch between reported problems and lab-based test results. Susan Cockshell notes that such differences are common in other illnesses too, such as stroke. In fact, her initial interest was in cognitive problems generally in illness, and she chose CFS specifically for her doctoral work as she thought this was an area where she could make a difference. She will be submitting her thesis soon and we can expect much more from this researcher in future.

Simon McGrath has a science degree, and has watched not much happening in ME/CFS research for a long time, but now thinks things are finally kicking off. He occasionally tweets on research: follow @pSimonMcGrath



Tweet


Phoenix Rising is a registered 501 c.(3) non profit. We support ME/CFS and NEID patients through rigorous reporting, reliable information, effective advocacy and the provision of online services which empower patients and help them to cope with their isolation.

There are many ways you can help Phoenix Rising to continue its work. You can even donate significant sums, at no cost to yourself, as you shop online! To find out more, visit Phoenix Rising’s Donate page by clicking the button below.



View the Post on the Blog
 
Just had an email for Susan Cockshell sayinig she enjoyed the blog, and, more importantly, the patient comments on this thread, adding that "it is the patients that help provide some of the greatest insight into the condition ... they know what they are experiencing." Would be great if all researchers thought that way.
 
I I also go totally blank on information I know I know -- like a muscle name I am writing down on a chart. It just leaves. I can visualize what I need to do, but cannot name it or write it down properly, and occasionally have to ask someone.

I had a greater variety of cognitive problems when I was more ill. Word-finding was a very prominent one and one I've heard other patients with ME mention. I was a little surprised it didn't come up in this study.

I'll be interested to see Ms. Cockshell's post-test fatigue study results. Mental exercise fatigues me as much or more than physical exercise. Cognitive problems also show up first (or very early) if I overexert. I wouldn't be surprised to find that's true of many of us.
 
I think a real meaningful study would compare the CFS patients to their former healthier selves rather than to "controls". I don't mean to brag but I know I had a high IQ back when I was healthier. I suspect that my IQ is probably lower now and more in the average range so compared to controls there wouldn't be much of a difference. But if you compare ME now to the ME I used to be -- big difference!.

I agree that measuring the change in cognitive function (if only that were possible) from pre-ME to post-ME would be more meaningful. My husband frequently points out to me that the cognitive "impairment" I complain about now is the normal state for many healthy people. He says I'm just frustrated because I can't perform cognitively the way I used to, not that my cognitive function is substantially sub-par for humans in general. I think he has a point.

Those of us in high mental demand fields -- law, medicine, engineering, to name just a few -- find ourselves unable to work due to a reduction in cognitive function as much or more than the problems of reduction in physical functioning.
 
My limited experience indicated that the neuropsych tests do a pretty good job of comparing the areas where we have big deficits (our "brain fog") to the areas that have stayed mostly intact and reflect our original IQs (verbal skills and other areas that don't require working memory.) I wish getting the tests done weren't so incredibly expensive.

I participated in a research study with Natelson more than a year ago that included a specialized MRI, a spinal tap, and some neuropsych tests. One of the tests was the ROCF (I didn't know the name until reading this thread.) I copied the drawing slowly but, I am pretty sure, accurately. When the test-giver removed the original drawing and asked me to re-draw the figure 30 seconds later I could only draw one big square. I am pretty sure 99% of the population could do better than I did. The neuropsych tests also include basic IQ tests that theoretically establish a pretty good baseline; I had to read a list of increasingly difficult words and I think I did as well on that test as I would have pre-illness.

There was one additional test in which I had to watch numbers flash on a screen and click when they repeated twice-- I had to lie down after 10 minutes because my brain lost all ability to process information when trying to do that simple task. I studied computer science in college but find programming almost impossible to do now and I think the difficulty of the simple n-back test shows why. I likely could do basic physical work better than I can do mental work right now.
 
For patients with some type of orthostatic intolerance the results would probably be different if you tested them standing vs. sitting vs. lying down. I joke that I gain 30 IQ points just by sitting down, and probably another 20-30 points by lying down. Oh, and closing my eyes. I screen out the extraneous data that way and I can think better.

Pre-ME/CFS I never had to close my eyes to think, never had trouble with too much input, and so on. But now this is a major problem.

The other variable is how rested I am. In a crash I get pretty brain dead with trying to talk. But after a few days of resting my brain gets better again. I'm not sure how much of that is just what would happen to anyone feeling sick vs. specific to ME/CFS patients.

My most obvious area of brain fog is word finding. Abstract words are not so bad. I used to say that when I was having aphasia I never had trouble with the word aphasia. (Yeah, I know it's not really true aphasia, it's more like anomia or some word like that...too tired to look it up right now)

Similarly in my work environment, I never had trouble with words like algorithm, schedule, module, variable, or any similar abstract words. Since those were the majority of my discussion with my peers I didn't run into this problem all that much. I took lots of medical leaves, reduced my hours, etc. but I was able to deal with the brain fog okay. I was able to keep programming and I found lots of ways to compensate.

But concrete items were always a problem. So at work I might say something like, "Hand me that.... ummm... black, square, holds data, it's right there.... DISK! Yeah, the floppy disk. Thanks."
 
I'd second the compare me before and after ME issue. I used to think more clearly than most but at my worst would go into the kitchen and forget why I was there. I'd sometimes forget a word. A gluten free diet cleared it but I'm not coeliac. I suspect it reduces inflammatory load and allowed something to (partially?) heal. Hard to tell if my continued inability to both concentrate and to think as clearly as I once did is increasing age or continuing illness.
 
I agree that measuring the change in cognitive function (if only that were possible) from pre-ME to post-ME would be more meaningful. My husband frequently points out to me that the cognitive "impairment" I complain about now is the normal state for many healthy people. He says I'm just frustrated because I can't perform cognitively the way I used to, not that my cognitive function is substantially sub-par for humans in general. I think he has a point.

Those of us in high mental demand fields -- law, medicine, engineering, to name just a few -- find ourselves unable to work due to a reduction in cognitive function as much or more than the problems of reduction in physical functioning.

Yes SOC, in some ways I function mentally more effectively than the average person, though not in others. This leads many to think, I am sure, that cognitively I am OK. Someone who is intelligent and interacts pro-actively can't have anything wrong with them.

I don't even know what my full mental faculty is any more. Its far more than I have, I can see that during the rare improved times, but by how much? Being physically exhausted or in moderate pain wouldn't stop me working from home as a programmer. Being unable to count or do simple math much of the time, and often getting it wrong, its a killer to programming.
 
Aside from crashes, my cognitive problems are a result of orthostatic problems. When laying down all day for several weeks ( :eek: ) due to a bad OI episode where I couldn't sit up, my thinking improved dramatically. Too bad laying down all day is so boring and uncomfortable!

Also starting on an NRI which helps my low blood/pulse pressure problems has had a huge impact on my cognitive issues, not just on orthostatic intolerance itself. Basically I can think pretty clearly most of the day now ... read books, play complicated games, etc.
 
Comparing now vs pre-illness/IQ issues
I agree that measuring the change in cognitive function (if only that were possible) from pre-ME to post-ME would be more meaningful. My husband frequently points out to me that the cognitive "impairment" I complain about now is the normal state for many healthy people. He says I'm just frustrated because I can't perform cognitively the way I used to, not that my cognitive function is substantially sub-par for humans in general. I think he has a point.

Those of us in high mental demand fields -- law, medicine, engineering, to name just a few -- find ourselves unable to work due to a reduction in cognitive function as much or more than the problems of reduction in physical functioning.
Cognitive performance correlates with overall IQ, and many studies explicitly compensate for this. As searcher says
My limited experience indicated that the neuropsych tests do a pretty good job of comparing the areas where we have big deficits (our "brain fog") to the areas that have stayed mostly intact and reflect our original IQs (verbal skills and other areas that don't require working memory.) I wish getting the tests done weren't so incredibly expensive.

...The neuropsych tests also include basic IQ tests that theoretically establish a pretty good baseline; I had to read a list of increasingly difficult words and I think I did as well on that test as I would have pre-illness.
Susan Cockshell's latest study certainly took IQ into consideration, while the large (n=>300) Thomas study I mentioned used National Adult Reading Test scores "to measure pre-morbid intelligence'.


Impact of Orthostatic intolerance on test performance
For patients with some type of orthostatic intolerance the results would probably be different if you tested them standing vs. sitting vs. lying down. I joke that I gain 30 IQ points just by sitting down, and probably another 20-30 points by lying down. Oh, and closing my eyes. I screen out the extraneous data that way and I can think better.
...
The other variable is how rested I am. In a crash I get pretty brain dead with trying to talk. But after a few days of resting my brain gets better again. I'm not sure how much of that is just what would happen to anyone feeling sick vs. specific to ME/CFS patients.

Aside from crashes, my cognitive problems are a result of orthostatic problems. When laying down all day for several weeks ( :eek: ) due to a bad OI episode where I couldn't sit up, my thinking improved dramatically. Too bad laying down all day is so boring and uncomfortable!
There was an interesting study done on CFS patients with POTS that found CFS patients response, but not controls, got worse as they got more upright in an n-back test, concluding " Increasing orthostatic stress impairs neurocognition in CFS subjects". The results indicated the problem might be with how brain blood flow responds (or not) in response to orthostatic stress.
 
I have a feeling there are different stages too depending on the damage (or whatever) sustained at any one time. At the severest I could not recall names nor even recognise a plug in the sink with slurred speech and delayed understanding of anything said to me (though strangely going over it later "processing" was normal). My brain MRI revealed "high intense spots" so I do know there is some brain "damage" involved - for now vocabulary, memory and greater processing speed is vastly improved - why I don't know except following all the accepted ME supps by those in the know, though quite some time "locked in", and very "black holes".

We really do need the new generation of Neurologists to identify - viral, bacterial, impaired blood flow, lactic acid build up etc.
 
Word-finding was a very prominent one and one I've heard other patients with ME mention. I was a little surprised it didn't come up in this study.

I know that this problem has gotten way worse for me over the past few years. I just stop midsentance and can't for the life of me remember what word I need to use, let alone how to describe the physical object that I want to find the word for. It's like that section of my memory just had a hard-drive failure.

And, to be honest, I've spent a lot of time thinking that my current condition started in the summer of 2005. But as I look at my sons and see their health ailments get worse, now I remember that there have been a lot of times in my youth where I wasn't healthy and there wasn't an explanation - but I just attempted to power through it. During my 20's I would commonly substitute two or three words in a sentence with a separate word without even realizing it. So, if I wanted my son to put the pot on the table. I might say something like 'Dog, get the can and put it on the couch'. And then wonder why he didn't do what I asked him to do. I think there have been small clues to my future state for decades now that I look at it and understand myself better.
 
Because of my memory problems I wanted to do a neuro-cognitive test.
I had to do a few hours of serious testing.
The psy-lab I went to is known for extensive testing with specific "cfs" testing possibilities.

My results were a bit what I expected, but I was surprised of one thing:
I really like doing the kinds of tests mentioned above. I focused totally and wanted to get things right. And I did. Hardly made a mistake, both in maths and in word-tests.
The surprise was: I thought I was quick but ... I appeared to be slow (!).
If you know what I did for a living before I got sick you would be surprised too.

The other thing that they found was that my memory problems are problems of imprinting (don't know if that's the right word in english?). When you're not able to soak things up from the start, you won't be able to retrieve a memory of something. That could explain the "wholes" in my memory.

The third thing that was very obvious from testing was that I used all the resources and brain "tricks" possible, to be able to perform the tests.
When I had to do a test where 2 things had to be done at the same time (crossing certain numbers in a list + counting the fire shots I heared). Others (healthy people?) can do both at the same time. Whereas I compartementalised the 2 tasks. I stopped crossing numbers to be able to count the fireshots and then went further to cross the numbers they told me to cross in the test.

They also "saw" that I went pale and was really exhausted very soon after the start of the tests. Whereas I did my utmost best to perform well and tried not to show the effort I had to put in.
The just "saw" it ... I fysically showed signs of exhaustion, far too soon ...

So, what was the conclusion:
- I use all my brain resources to perform (they couldn't learn me any braintricks I didn't already use myself)
- I use all regions of my brain whereas others don't have to do that
- I'm far slower than normal, although I still perform very well (almost no mistakes)
- My memory problems are problems of "imprinting" (I should take fotos of everything and every place I go to they advised me ...)
- I get exhausted and drained out very very quickly
- I'm not able to "multi-task" in a normal way

these results correlate perfectly with what I experience. i'm able to concentrate, able to write ver good campaign-letters, able to translate and read very complicated (scientific) tests. But I forget the things I read immediately after reading, I forget things that are asked of me, I forget places we went to, ... And when I focus on something I "get it" very well but it drains me out very very quickly.

I had these extensive tests done at my own initiative and at my own expense.
I wanted to "get" what I felt was wrong with my former high-functioning brain.
 
Because of my memory problems I wanted to do a neuro-cognitive test... The psy-lab I went to is known for extensive testing with specific "cfs" testing possibilities.

The surprise was: I thought I was quick but ... I appeared to be slow (!).
You might be interested to know that with most cognitive tests. there is a trade-off between speed and accuracy. In research, CFS patients usually do very well on accuracy on 'self-paced' tests, but less well (relative to controls) on fixed-speed tests.
The third thing that was very obvious from testing was that I used all the resources and brain "tricks" possible, to be able to perform the tests.

When I had to do a test where 2 things had to be done at the same time (crossing certain numbers in a list + counting the fire shots I heared). Others (healthy people?) can do both at the same time. Whereas I compartementalised the 2 tasks. I stopped crossing numbers to be able to count the fireshots and then went further to cross the numbers they told me to cross in the test.
A few studies now have found, using fMRI, that CFS patients use (activate) more brain regions than healthy controls to accomplish the same cognitive tasks to the same standard.
They also "saw" that I went pale and was really exhausted very soon after the start of the tests. Whereas I did my utmost best to perform well and tried not to show the effort I had to put in.
The just "saw" it ... I fysically showed signs of exhaustion, far too soon ...
That's interesting too (and not just because i have the same experience :)). Which is why Susan Cockshell's latest study will be good to see since it measures fatigue after testing as well as before. Would be good to have some sort of 'in-test' measure of fatigue too, to capture what your testers 'just saw', since it may be one of the most important differences between CFS patients and controls.
 
I had huge brainfog, could not even type 3 words or find a bill in a pile some years ago. The names of my children, the road to home, ... it was a disaster. Things have improved since a year. I can write and read a lot. I took a lot of supplements but I guess it is a combination of Low dose naltrexone, licorice root, biotin and D-phenylalaline that did the trick. Biotin in high dosage (10 mg) kills candida and lifts part of the brain fog. Licorice root supports the adrenals and when they start working again (let's say after 9 months of use) it does make a difference. Low dose naltrexone (LDN) is very strong and causes in most people kind of herxheimer reactions for months. You'll have to start very low (0,25 mg for a month before slowly increasing the dose). You produce more endorphines and it had a huge impact on my brain. In the beginning extreme headaches but apparently it was part of my healing. LDN also gives you more energy but it'll affect your sleep in the beginning. Consider 5-HTP of some melatonin to sleep. D-phenylalaline is what is needed to make neurotransmitters. It helps me to be in good mood and apparently to have a better memory as well after extensive usage.
Wish you all the best.
I have noticed that if I am given saline (thus improving total blood volume) that I can feel the increase in blood flow to my head and for a while my brain works normally. One of the 'adrenal' benefits of liquorice root is better availability of Aldosterone the adrenal hormone that helps retain water (and therefore blood).
 
Back