Cognitive estimation: Performance of patients with focal frontal and posterior lesions
Cognitive estimation: Performance of patients with focal frontal and posterior lesions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.08.017
复制
发表时间：
2018-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Nachev, Parashkev
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cipolotti, Lisa;MacPherson, Sarah E.;Nachev, Parashkev
认知估计测验(CET)是一种被广泛使用的测验，用来考察需要复杂过程的估计能力，如推理、适当策略的开发和应用、反应的似然性检验以及常识和算术(例如Shallice和Evans，1978；MacPherson等人，2014)。到目前为止，CET是否对额叶功能障碍既敏感又特异，目前还不清楚。神经成像技术可能不是回答这个问题的有用方法，因为涉及的复杂过程可能与大脑区域的大型网络有关，其中一些区域在功能上并不是成功进行CET所必需的。相反，神经心理学研究可能是一种更有前途的研究工具，可以用来确定CET成绩所必需的大脑区域。我们最近开发了两个新版本的CET(CET-A和CET-B；MacPherson等人，2014)。我们调查了局灶性、单侧、额部(n=38)或后部(n=22)病变患者和健康对照组(n=39)CET-A的总体表现并进行了误差分析。我们发现，与健康对照组相比，额叶患者的CET成绩有所下降。我们还发现，前额患者的CET-A得分明显低于后级患者。这不能用液态智力受损来解释。错误分析表明，对于CET-A，额叶损伤后极端和非常极端的反应受到损害。然而，只有非常极端的反应在额叶损伤后比后叶损伤明显更严重，因此除了整体CET成绩外，这一指标仅限于额叶“执行”损害。
The Cognitive Estimation Test (CET) is a widely used test to investigate estimation abilities requiring complex processes such as reasoning, the development and application of appropriate strategies, response plausibility checking as well as general knowledge and numeracy (e.g., Shallice and Evans, 1978; MacPherson et al., 2014). Thus far, it remains unknown whether the CET is both sensitive and specific to frontal lobe dysfunction. Neuroimaging techniques may not represent a useful methodology for answering this question since the complex processes involved are likely to be associated with a large network of brain regions, some of which are not functionally necessary to successfully carry out the CET. Instead, neuropsychological studies may represent a more promising investigation tool for identifying the brain areas necessary for CET performance. We recently developed two new versions of the CET (CET-A and CET-B; MacPherson et al., 2014). We investigated the overall performance and conducted an error analysis on CET-A in patients with focal, unilateral, frontal (n = 38) or posterior (n = 22) lesions and healthy controls (n = 39). We found that frontal patients' performance was impaired compared to healthy controls on CET. We also found that frontal patients generated significantly poorer estimates than posterior patients on CET-A. This could not be explained by impairments in fluid intelligence. The error analyses suggested that for CET-A, extreme and very extreme responses are impaired following frontal lobe damage. However, only very extreme responses are significantly more impaired following frontal lobe than posterior damage and so represent a measure restricted to frontal "executive" impairment, in addition to overall CET performance.