↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Repeat Testing, Malingering, and Traumatic Brain Injury on Computerized Measures of Visuospatial Memory Span

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Effects of Repeat Testing, Malingering, and Traumatic Brain Injury on Computerized Measures of Visuospatial Memory Span
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00690
Pubmed ID
Authors

David L. Woods, John M. Wyma, Timothy J. Herron, E. W. Yund

Abstract

Spatial span tests (SSTs) such as the Corsi Block Test (CBT) and the SST of the Wechsler Memory Scale are widely used to assess deficits in spatial working memory. We conducted three experiments to evaluate the test-retest reliability and clinical sensitivity of a new computerized spatial span test (C-SST) that incorporates psychophysical methods to improve the precision of spatial span measurement. In Experiment 1, we analyzed C-SST test-retest reliability in 49 participants who underwent three test sessions at weekly intervals. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were higher for a psychophysically derived mean span (MnS) metric (0.83) than for the maximal span and total correct metrics used in traditional spatial-span tests. Response times (ReTs) also showed high ICCs (0.93) that correlated negatively with MnS scores and correlated positively with response-time latencies from other tests of processing speed. Learning effects were insignificant. Experiment 2 examined the performance of Experiment 1 participants when instructed to feign symptoms of traumatic brain injury (TBI): 57% showed abnormal MnS z-scores. A MnS z-score cutoff of 3.0 correctly classified 36% of simulated malingerers and 91% of the subgroup of 11 control participants with abnormal spans. Malingerers also made more substitution errors than control participants with abnormal spans (sensitivity = 43%, specificity = 91%). In addition, malingerers showed no evidence of ReT slowing, in contrast to significant abnormalities seen on other malingered tests of processing speed. As a result, differences between ReT z-scores and z-scores on other processing speed tests showed very high sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing malingering and control participants with either normal or abnormal spans. Experiment 3 examined C-SST performance in a group of patients with predominantly mild TBI: neither MnS nor ReT z-scores showed significant group-level abnormalities. The C-SST improves the reliability and sensitivity of spatial span testing, can accurately detect malingering, and shows that visuospatial working memory is largely preserved in patients with predominantly mild TBI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Neuroscience 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 14 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,136,219
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,774
of 7,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,996
of 395,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#115
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.