Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28811256›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychologia2018

Cognitive estimation: Performance of patients with focal frontal and posterior lesions.

Lisa Cipolotti, Sarah E MacPherson, Sara Gharooni, Natasja van-Harskamp, Tim Shallice, Edgar Chan, Parashkev Nachev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Revisiting the critical roles of reactive microglia in traumatic brain injury.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Graph lesion-deficit mapping of fluid intelligence.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Multi-model mapping of phonemic fluency.Brain communications · 2021
    Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Lisa CipolottiDepartment of Neuropsychology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK; Dipartimento di Scienze Psicologiche, Pedagogiche e della Formazione, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: l.cipolotti@ucl.ac.uk.
Sarah E MacPhersonCentre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Sara GharooniDepartment of Neuropsychology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Natasja van-HarskampDepartment of Neuropsychology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Tim ShalliceInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, UK; International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA-ISAS), Trieste, Italy.
Edgar ChanDepartment of Neuropsychology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Parashkev NachevInstitute of Neurology, UCL, UK & National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Brain MappingAdultAgedAnalysis of VarianceBrain Injuries, TraumaticCognition DisordersFemaleFrontal LobeHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsCognitive estimation testExecutive functionsFluid intelligencePrefrontal cortex

Identifiers

PMID28811256
PMCPMC6018564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.