scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
JournalISSN: 1355-6177

Journal of The International Neuropsychological Society 

Cambridge University Press
About: Journal of The International Neuropsychological Society is an academic journal published by Cambridge University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Cognition & Neuropsychology. It has an ISSN identifier of 1355-6177. Over the lifetime, 2835 publications have been published receiving 146247 citations. The journal is also known as: JINS.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Yaakov Stern1
TL;DR: This paper attempts to develop a coherent theoretical account of reserve, a distinction is suggested between reserve, the ability to optimize or maximize normal performance, and compensation, an attempt to maximize performance in the face of brain damage by using brain structures or networks not engaged when the brain is not damaged.
Abstract: The idea of reserve against brain damage stems from the repeated observation that there does not appear to be a direct relationship between the degree of brain pathology or brain damage and the clinical manifestation of that damage. This paper attempts to develop a coherent theoretical account of reserve. One convenient subdivision of reserve models revolves around whether they envision reserve as a passive process, such as in brain reserve or threshold, or see the brain as actively attempting to cope with or compensate for pathology, as in cognitive reserve. Cognitive reserve may be based on more efficient utilization of brain networks or of enhanced ability to recruit alternate brain networks as needed. A distinction is suggested between reserve, the ability to optimize or maximize normal performance, and compensation, an attempt to maximize performance in the face of brain damage by using brain structures or networks not engaged when the brain is not damaged. Epidemiologic and imaging data that help to develop and support the concept of reserve are presented.

3,136 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results suggest that T MT-A requires mainly visuoperceptual abilities, TMT-B reflects primarily working memory and secondarily task-switching ability, while B-A minimizes visu operceptual and working memory demands, providing a relatively pure indicator of executive control abilities.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to clarify which cognitive mechanisms underlie Trail Making Test (TMT) direct and derived scores. A comprehensive review of the literature on the topic was carried out to clarify which cognitive factors had been related to TMT performance. Following the review, we explored the relative contribution from working memory, inhibition/interference control, task-switching ability, and visuomotor speed to TMT performance. Forty-one healthy old subjects participated in the study and performed a battery of neuropsychological tests including the TMT, the Digit Symbol subtest [Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Third Version) (WAIS-III)], a Finger Tapping Test, the Digits Forward and Backward subtests (WAIS-III), Stroop Test, and a task-switching paradigm inspired in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Correlation and regression analyses were used in order to clarify the joint and unique contributions from different cognitive factors to the prediction of TMT scores. The results suggest that TMT-A requires mainly visuoperceptual abilities, TMT-B reflects primarily working memory and secondarily task-switching ability, while B-A minimizes visuoperceptual and working memory demands, providing a relatively pure indicator of executive control abilities.

1,049 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The extent to which the tests predicted the patients' everyday life problems was significantly predictive of at least some of the behavioral and cognitive deficits reported by patients' carers, supporting the conclusions that different tests measure different cognitive processes and that there may be limits to the fractionation of the executive system.
Abstract: Ninety-two mixed etiology neurological patients and 216 control participants were assessed on a range of neuropsychological tests, including 10 neuropsychological measures of executive function derived from 6 different tests. People who knew the patients well (relatives or carers) completed a questionnaire about the patient's dysexecutive problems in everyday life, and this paper reports the extent to which the tests predicted the patients' everyday life problems. All of the tests were significantly predictive of at least some of the behavioral and cognitive deficits reported by patients' carers. However, factor analysis of the patients' dysexecutive symptoms suggested a fractionation of the dysexecutive syndrome, with neuropsychological tests loading differentially on 3 underlying cognitive factors (Inhibition, Intentionality, and Executive Memory), supporting the conclusions that different tests measure different cognitive processes, and that there may be limits to the fractionation of the executive system.

888 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Questions related to age, how many distinct influences are contributing to the relations between age and cognitive functioning, do the differences between people increase with advancing age, and what is responsible for the discrepancies between cross-sectional and longitudinal age comparisons of cognitive functioning are reviewed.
Abstract: Research concerned with relations between adult age and cognitive functioning is briefly reviewed. The coverage is necessarily selective, and is organized in terms of five major questions. These are what abilities are related to age, how many distinct influences are contributing to the relations between age and cognitive functioning, do the differences between people increase with advancing age, what is responsible for the discrepancies between cross-sectional and longitudinal age comparisons of cognitive functioning, and what methods can be used to identify causes of age-related influences on cognition. Although definitive answers are not yet possible, quite a bit of information relevant to the questions is now available. Moreover, the existing information has implications for the design, analysis, and interpretation of cognitive and neuropsychological research concerned with aging.

815 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is proposed that it is misguided and generally unjustified to attempt to control for IQ differences by matching procedures or, more commonly, by using IQ scores as covariates.
Abstract: IQ scores are volatile indices of global functional outcome, the final common path of an individual's genes, biology, cognition, education, and experiences. In studying neurocognitive outcomes in children with neurodevelopmental disorders, it is commonly assumed that IQ can and should be partialed out of statistical relations or used as a covariate for specific measures of cognitive outcome. We propose that it is misguided and generally unjustified to attempt to control for IQ differences by matching procedures or, more commonly, by using IQ scores as covariates. We offer logical, statistical, and methodological arguments, with examples from three neurodevelopmental disorders (spina bifida meningomyelocele, learning disabilities, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) that: (1) a historical reification of general intelligence, g, as a causal construct that measures aptitude and potential rather than achievement and performance has fostered the idea that IQ has special status and that in studying neurocognitive function in neurodevelopmental disorders; (2) IQ does not meet the requirements for a covariate; and (3) using IQ as a matching variable or covariate has produced overcorrected, anomalous, and counterintuitive findings about neurocognitive function.

809 citations

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
202382
2022121
2021176
2020100
2019110
201872