# Examining Memory Performance in Senior Adults:
## 3 Results
The most significant differences were evident between the MCI+ individuals with depressive symptoms (D+) and without depressive symptoms (D-) in terms of recall without cues (\(p=0.008\)) and MFE-28 scores (\(p=0.024\)). Individuals with depressive symptoms and MCI showed poorer performance on recall without cues (\(M=0.38\)) and reported higher subjective memory complaints (\(M=25.3\)) compared to those without depressive symptoms and MCI. Moreover, there were differences between the D+/MCI+ and D-/MCI- groups, with higher complaint scores observed in MFE-28 (\(p=0.000\)) and increased dependency noted in Lawton and Brody scores (\(p=0.000\)), among individuals with depressive symptoms and MCI. Additionally, variations in Lawton scale scores (\(p=0.006\)) were noted for the D-/MCI+ group when compared to healthy individuals. Figure 1: (**a**) Differences among groups on MFE-28 and MIS performance. (**b**) Scores on types of memories measured with MIS. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline  & **MFE-28** & **GDS-15** & **MoCa** \\ \hline Free Recall (0–5) & \(-0.382\) (\(p=0.001\)) & \(-0.307\) (\(p=0.008\)) & – \\ Total MIS (0–15) & \(-0.451\) (\(p=0.000\)) & \(-0.331\) (\(p=0.004\)) & – \\ MFE-28 & – & \(0.496\) (\(p=0.000\)) & \(-0.540\) (\(p=0.000\)) \\ GDS-15 & – & – & \(-0.409\) (\(p=0.000\)) \\ Age & \(0.422\) (\(p=0.000\)) & – & \(-0.667\) (\(p=0.000\)) \\ Educational level & – & \(-0.359\) (\(p=0.002\)) & \(0.505\) (\(p=0.000\)) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Study correlations. Pearson coefficients and significance. Correlations were computed for the whole sample. Age (60 to 99) and educational level (5 to 20 years) were taken into account to estimate the MCI cut-off point for the 43 external users of the healthy control group, but some subjects provided scores below the ones expected, or exhibited depressive symptomatology. Additionally, a bivariate regression analysis was carried out to study the individual effects of the variables used for classification (i.e., MoCa and GDS-15 scores) on the MFE-28, MIS and Lawson and Brody scores. In other words, the analysis served to explore how the combination of MCI and depressive symptoms status influenced memory performance. Table 4 collects the regression parameters and t-values obtained. In the case of MIS scores, the obtained correlation factor \(R=0.741\) indicates a strong correlation between the predictor variables and the dependent variable (MIT total score). \(R^{2}=0.549\) shows that \(54.9\%\) of the variability in MIS total score can be explained by the predictor variables. We can also observe that, according to the t-values obtained, MoCA is a significant predictor variable for the MIS total score, and GDS-15 is not a significant predictor variable for that score. When analysing the adjusted plane for MFE-28, we see that \(R=0.619\) indicates a moderate correlation between the predictor variables and this score, while \(38.3\%\) of the variability in this score can be explained by the predictor variables. Both GDS-15 and MOCA are significant predictor variables for MFE-28, with GDS-15 having a positive effect and MoCA a negative one. The constant term (\(\beta_{0}=26.595\), \(p<0.001\)) is statistically significant, suggesting that when MOCA and GDS-15 are held at zero, the baseline level of MFE-28 is significantly different from zero. With respect to the Lawton scores, we also observe a strong correlation between the predictor variables and [PERSON]'s, and \(57\%\) of the variability Lawton scores can be explained by the predictor variables. Again, only the MoCA score is a significant predictor in this case.