Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21936740›Full record

ArticleNeurocase2012

How number processing survives left occipito-temporal damage.

M Cappelletti, A P Leff, C J Price

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocase, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Residual number processing in dyscalculia.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2014
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M CappellettiInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK. m.cappelletti@ucl.ac.uk
A P Leff
C J Price

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated the neural systems that support number processing in a patient (JL) who had damage to the left ventral occipito-temporal cortex (LvOT). JL had severely impaired written word recognition but he was remarkably accurate in number tasks, albeit slower than normal. This suggests LvOT activation is necessary for efficient but not for accurate number decisions. Here we investigated how JL made accurate number decisions using fMRI; we compared JL's brain activation to that in healthy controls and in two patients with frontal lobe damage who, like JL, made slow but accurate responses in number tasks. For semantic relative to perceptual decisions on numbers, JL did not activate the left occipito-temporal area that was involved in all other subjects. However, JL had significantly increased activation in a left posterior middle temporal region. In addition, during semantic and perceptual decisions on numbers, JL showed increased activation in: (1) the right occipito-temporal cortex, (2) right caudate, and (3) bilateral frontal regions. These effects were unique to JL and cannot be explained in terms of abnormally long response times because they were not observed in the other patients who made slow but accurate number decisions. Together these results show that although the LvOT usually contributes to efficient number processing, activation in this region is not essential for accurate performance because (i) perceptual processing of numbers can be supported by right occipital, right caudate, and bilateral frontal activation and (ii) semantic processing of numbers can be supported by increased left posterior middle temporal activation associated with hand actions.

Indexed as

CognitionPsychomotor PerformanceAdultAgedCerebral InfarctionData Interpretation, StatisticalExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLanguage TestsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsOccipital Lobe

Identifiers

PMID21936740
PMCPMC3396380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.