Is formal scoring better than just looking? A comparison of subjective and objective scoring methods of the Rey Complex Figure Test for lateralizing temporal lobe epilepsy.
Is formal scoring better than just looking? A comparison of subjective and objective scoring methods of the Rey Complex Figure Test for lateralizing temporal lobe epilepsy.
复制标题
正式得分不仅比寻找更好吗？ REY复合物数测试的主观和客观评分方法的比较，用于横向颞叶癫痫。
DOI：
10.1080/13854046.2020.1865461
复制
发表时间：
2022-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bar WB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
LeMonda BC;MacAllister W;Morrison C;Vaurio L;Blackmon K;Maiman M;Liu A;Liberta T;Bar WB
神经心理学家对雷伊复杂图形测试（RCFT）进行评分，这是一种测量视觉空间功能和非语言记忆的方法。令人信服的论据表明，RCFT的特征性体征是可观察到的“肉眼”。标准评分系统对侧颞叶癫痫（TLE）不敏感，替代的“定性”评分系统无效且耗时。我们使用主观分类和标准评分检查TLE定侧的准确性。参与者为84例TLE患者（53例女性;平均年龄= 36岁）和46例对照组（27例女性;平均年龄= 27.5岁）。前者由神经科医师通过EEG和MRI检查分为右侧（n = 41）或左侧（n = 43）TLE。RCFT使用标准评分进行评分，z ≤ −2的临界值被归类为受损，并被神经心理学家评定为RTLE（丑陋）或LTLE（不丑陋）表现的“特征”。两种方法的癫痫发作定侧的准确性进行了检查。神经心理学家的评级准确性是或低于机会。标准评分标准显示机会或略好的偏侧化预测。标准评分预测RTLE偏侧更准确地比主观评分复制试验，标准评分是没有更好地偏侧RTLE延迟。主观评分在区分TLE患者和对照组方面更好。研究结果强调了有关的有用性的RCFT在TLE偏侧，无论评分方法。
Neuropsychologists labor over scoring the Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT), a measure of visuospatial functioning and nonverbal memory. Compelling arguments suggest that pathognomonic signs of the RCFT are observable to the “naked eye.” Standard scoring systems are insensitive to lateralizing temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) and alternative “qualitative” scoring systems are ineffective and time-consuming. We examined accuracy of TLE lateralization using subjective classifications and standard scoring. Participants were 84 TLE patients (53 female; mean age=36yrs) and 46 controls (27 female; mean age = 27.5). The former were classified as right (n = 41) or left (n = 43) TLE by neurologists using EEG and MRI studies. RCFT were scored using standard scoring with cut-offs of z ≤ −2 classified as impaired and were rated as “characteristic” of RTLE (Ugly) or LTLE (Not Ugly) performance by neuropsychologists. Accuracy of seizure lateralization for both methods was examined. Neuropsychologists’ ratings accuracy were at or below chance. Standard scoring criteria showed chance or slightly better lateralization prediction. Standard scoring predicted RTLE laterality more accurately than subjective ratings for copy trials; standard scoring was no better at lateralizing RTLE with delays. Subjective ratings were better at distinguishing TLE patients from controls. Findings highlight concerns regarding the usefulness of the RCFT in TLE lateralization, regardless of scoring approach.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.3
作者：
Law, JR;Flanery, MA;Stark, CEL
通讯作者：
Stark, CEL
影响因子：
11.2
作者：
Helmstaedter, C;Kurthen, M;Elger, CE
通讯作者：
Elger, CE
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
JONESGOTMAN, M;MILNER, B
通讯作者：
MILNER, B
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Frank, Jean;Landeira-Fernandez, J.
通讯作者：
Landeira-Fernandez, J.
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
HELMSTAEDTER, C;POHL, C;ELGER, CE
通讯作者：
ELGER, CE