ArticleBrain sciences2024
Neurocognitive Assessment of Mathematics-Related Capacities in Neurosurgical Patients.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Age-Related and Sex Differences in Visuospatial Working Memory and Its Association with Math Achievement: Insights from Span, Accuracy, and RT in Corsi Block Tapping Test.Psychology in Russia : state of the art · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A precise neuropsychological assessment is of the utmost importance for neurosurgical patients undergoing the surgical excision of cerebral lesions. The assessment of mathematical abilities is usually limited to arithmetical operations while other fundamental visuo-spatial aspects closely linked to mathematics proficiency, such as the perception of numerical quantities and geometrical reasoning, are completely neglected. We evaluated these abilities with two objective and reproducible psychophysical tests, measuring numerosity perception and non-symbolic geometry, respectively. We tested sixteen neuro-oncological patients before the operation and six after the operation with classical neuropsychological tests and with two psychophysical tests. The scores of the classical neuropsychological tests were very heterogeneous, possibly due to the distinct location and histology of the tumors that might have spared (or not) brain areas subserving these abilities or allowed for plastic reorganization. Performance in the two non-symbolic tests reflected, on average, the presumed functional role of the lesioned areas, with participants with parietal and frontal lesions performing worse on these tests than patients with occipital and temporal lesions. Single-case analyses not only revealed some interesting exceptions to the group-level results (e.g., patients with parietal lesions performing well in the numerosity test), but also indicated that performance in the two tests was independent of non-verbal reasoning and visuo-spatial working memory. Our results highlight the importance of assessing non-symbolic numerical and geometrical abilities to complement typical neuropsychological batteries. However, they also suggest an avoidance of reliance on an excessively rigid localizationist approach when evaluating the neuropsychological profile of oncological patients.
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.