Search

Recent factor-analytic studies of the Halstead Category Test (HCT) indicate that its seven subtests form three factors including a Counting factor (subtests I and II), a Spatial Positional Reasoning factor (subtests III, IV, and VII), and a Proportional Reasoning factor (subtests V, VI, and VII). The sensitivity and specificity of these factors to heterogeneous forms of brain damage was examined in a large sample of patients and a normal comparison sample. A prorated Impairment Index, which excluded the HCT error score, was used to assign participants with brain damage into mild, moderate, and severe impairment groups. Also, groups with various forms of neuropathology were contrasted. Results indicated that both the Spatial Positional Reasoning and the Proportional Reasoning factors were sensitive to brain damage. However, in all of the brain-damage groups, a greater percentage of errors were made on the Spatial Positional factor, suggesting that of the two it was more difficult for those with brain damage. The sensitivity and specificity of the Spatial Positional factor score for detection of brain damage was comparable to that of the total error score, which has been previously demonstrated to be an excellent indicator of brain damage. Findings provide further support for the validity of the HCT factors, and are consistent with the view that factor scores may be useful in interpreting the HCT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paraphasias on the Cognistat (Northern California Neurobehavioral Group, 1995) memory subtest were examined in a sample of geriatric veterans (average age = 77). "Robert" and "parrot" were the most frequently occurring paraphasias for the target words robin, carrot, piano, and green. Paraphasias were also common (35%) for patients with no deficits on Cognistat. Paraphasia production could not be explained by differences in hearing ability, education level, or neuropsychological deficits. Paraphasia frequency and type varied by ethnic group: European-Americans were less likely to have a paraphasia, Hispanic-Americans were more likely to have a "Robert" or "parrot" paraphasia, and African-Americans were more likely to have a paraphasia other than "Robert" or "parrot." Additional research is needed to determine the cause of paraphasias on the Cognistat and the clinical significance of paraphasias for each ethnic group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cognitive symptoms are often reported by those with a history of COVID-19 infection. No comprehensive meta-analysis of neurocognitive outcomes related to COVID-19 exists despite the influx of studies after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study meta-analysed observational research comparing cross-sectional neurocognitive outcomes in adults with COVID-19 (without severe medical/psychiatric comorbidity) to healthy controls (HCs) or norm-referenced data., Methods: Data were extracted from 54 studies published between January 2020 and June 2023. Hedges' g was used to index effect sizes, which were pooled using random-effects modelling. Moderating variables were investigated using meta-regression and subgroup analyses., Results: Omnibus meta-analysis of 696 effect sizes extracted across 54 studies (COVID-19 n=6676, HC/norm-reference n=12 986; average time since infection=~6 months) yielded a small but significant effect indicating patients with COVID-19 performed slightly worse than HCs on cognitive measures (g=-0.36; 95% CI=-0.45 to -0.28), with high heterogeneity (Q=242.30, p<0.001, τ=0.26). Significant within-domain effects was yielded by cognitive screener (g=-0.55; 95% CI=-0.75 to -0.36), processing speed (g=-0.44; 95% CI=-0.57 to -0.32), global cognition (g=-0.40; 95% CI=-0.71 to -0.09), simple/complex attention (g=-0.38; 95% CI=-0.46 to -0.29), learning/memory (g=-0.34; 95% CI=-0.46 to -0.22), language (g=-0.34; 95% CI=-0.45 to -0.24) and executive function (g=-0.32; 95% CI=-0.43 to -0.21); but not motor (g=-0.40; 95% CI=-0.89 to 0.10), visuospatial/construction (g=-0.09; 95% CI=-0.23 to 0.05) and orientation (g=-0.02; 95% CI=-0.17 to 0.14). COVID-19 samples with elevated depression, anxiety, fatigue and disease severity yielded larger effects., Conclusion: Mild cognitive deficits are associated with COVID-19 infection, especially as detected by cognitive screeners and processing speed tasks. We failed to observe clinically meaningful cognitive impairments (as measured by standard neuropsychological instruments) in people with COVID-19 without severe medical or psychiatric comorbidities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)