ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology2023
Recognition subtests of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status: evidence for a cortical vs. subcortical distinction.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recognition Subtests for Form B of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status: Preliminary Validation.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025Observational
- Feasibility and construct validity evaluation of remote neuropsychological testing using the K-eRBANS: a preliminary single group prospective observational study.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWithin clinical neuropsychology, a classic diagnostic distinction is made between cortical and subcortical disorders, especially based on their memory profiles. Typically, this is based on the comparison of recall and recognition trials, where individuals with cortical conditions do not tend to benefit (i.e., score well) on recognition trials and individuals with subcortical conditions do. Although the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a widely used brief cognitive battery, there is a lack of evidence to support this measure's utility in distinguishing between the memory profiles of these conditions.
methodThirty-six mild Alzheimer's disease (AD), 55 Parkinson's disease (PD), and 105 essential tremor (ET) participants (
resultsAs expected, individuals with AD had poorer recognition scores compared to the other clinical groups across tasks (all p-values < .05), while the ET sample largely performed comparably to the PD sample. With the exception of comparable Figure Recognition and Recall in the PD sample, all groups exhibited significantly greater recognition Hit performance compared to Recall (all p-values < .05).
conclusionsThe group differences in performance across RBANS recognition subtests suggest support for traditional "cortical" and "subcortical" profiles. However, all groups, including the mild AD sample, demonstrated a benefit from recognition cues compared to free recall. Overall, these findings support the inclusion of the newly developed Story and Figure Recognition subtests in future clinical practice and research endeavors.
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.