ArticleNeuropsychologia2018
Cognitive estimation: Performance of patients with focal frontal and posterior lesions.
Article in Neuropsychologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting the critical roles of reactive microglia in traumatic brain injury.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Review
- A right frontal network for analogical and deductive reasoning.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Creative thinking and cognitive estimation in Parkinson's disease.Neurological research and practice · 2024Article
- Graph lesion-deficit mapping of fluid intelligence.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Characterizing phonemic fluency by transfer learning with deep language models.Brain communications · 2023Article
- What determines cognitive estimation ability? Changing contributions of semantic and executive domains as a function of age.Journal of neuropsychology · 2022Article
- Artificially-reconstructed brain images with stroke lesions from non-imaging data: modeling in categorized patients based on lesion occurrence and sparsity.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Mild-to-Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury: A Review with Focus on the Visual System.Neurology international · 2022Review
- In- and Out-Group Effects on Social Perception and Empathy in Cocaine Use Disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Multi-model mapping of phonemic fluency.Brain communications · 2021Article
- Fluency and rule breaking behaviour in the frontal cortex.Neuropsychologia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Cognitive Estimation Test (CET) is a widely used test to investigate estimation abilities requiring complex processes such as reasoning, the development and application of appropriate strategies, response plausibility checking as well as general knowledge and numeracy (e.g., Shallice and Evans, 1978; MacPherson et al., 2014). Thus far, it remains unknown whether the CET is both sensitive and specific to frontal lobe dysfunction. Neuroimaging techniques may not represent a useful methodology for answering this question since the complex processes involved are likely to be associated with a large network of brain regions, some of which are not functionally necessary to successfully carry out the CET. Instead, neuropsychological studies may represent a more promising investigation tool for identifying the brain areas necessary for CET performance. We recently developed two new versions of the CET (CET-A and CET-B; MacPherson et al., 2014). We investigated the overall performance and conducted an error analysis on CET-A in patients with focal, unilateral, frontal (n = 38) or posterior (n = 22) lesions and healthy controls (n = 39). We found that frontal patients' performance was impaired compared to healthy controls on CET. We also found that frontal patients generated significantly poorer estimates than posterior patients on CET-A. This could not be explained by impairments in fluid intelligence. The error analyses suggested that for CET-A, extreme and very extreme responses are impaired following frontal lobe damage. However, only very extreme responses are significantly more impaired following frontal lobe than posterior damage and so represent a measure restricted to frontal "executive" impairment, in addition to overall CET performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.