Commentary on "A motion to exclude and the 'fixed' versus 'flexible' battery in 'forensic' neuropsychology".
(57/169)
In a recent article Bigler criticized the utilization of the Daubert criterion in "motions to exclude". He cited attempts to deny trial acceptability of assessment results derived from neuropsychological batteries that were not fixed or standardized. He argues that the Halstead-Reitan battery (HRB) would be the only acceptable battery. Also, he argues that the HRB is out of date, since it was originally 'standardized' 50 years ago. This argument commits the "archaeological fallacy", that a procedure or information is invalid when it was originally developed some time in the past. To the contrary the HRB, along with several other fixed and standardized batteries have recently been validated as well as in the past. By contrast, flexible assessment procedures have never been validated at any time. (+info)
The neuropsychology of amphetamine and opiate dependence: implications for treatment.
(58/169)
Chronic use of amphetamines and/or opiates has been associated with a wide range of cognitive deficits, involving domains of attention, inhibitory control, planning, decision-making, learning and memory. Although both amphetamine and opiate users show marked impairment in various aspects of cognitive function, the impairment profile is distinctly different according to the substance of abuse. In light of evidence showing that cognitive impairment in drug users has a negative impact on treatment engagement and efficacy, we review substance-specific deficits on executive and memory function, and discuss possibilities to address these during treatment intervention. (+info)
Automation of the novel object recognition task for use in adolescent rats.
(59/169)
The novel object recognition task is gaining popularity for its ability to test a complex behavior which relies on the integrity of memory and attention systems without placing undue stress upon the animal. While the task places few requirements upon the animal, it traditionally requires the experimenter to observe the test phase directly and record behavior. This approach can severely limit the number of subjects which can be tested in a reasonable period of time, as training and testing occur on the same day and span several hours. The current study was designed to test the feasibility of automation of this task for adolescent rats using standard activity chambers, with the goals of increased objectivity, flexibility, and throughput of subjects. (+info)
Towards a computational neuropsychology of action.
(60/169)
From a computational perspective, the act of using a tool and making a movement involves solving three kinds of problems: we need to learn the costs that are associated with our actions as well as the rewards that we may experience at various sensory states. We need to learn how our motor commands produce changes in things that we can sense. Finally, we must learn how to actually produce the motor commands that are needed so that we minimize the costs and maximize the rewards. The various computational problems appear to require different kinds of error signals that guide their learning, and might rely on different kinds of contextual cues that allow their recall. Indeed, there may be different neural structures that compute these functions. Here we use this computational framework to review the motor control capabilities of two important patients who have been studied extensively from the neuropsychological perspective: HM, who suffered from severe amnesia; and BG, who suffered from apraxia. When viewed from a computational perspective, the capabilities and deficits of these patients provide insights into the neural basis of our ability to willfully move our limbs and interact with the objects around us. (+info)
Famous Russian brains: historical attempts to understand intelligence.
(61/169)
An Internet-based symptom questionnaire that is reliable, valid, and available to psychiatrists, neurologists, and psychologists.
(63/169)
The Neuropsych Questionnaire (NPQ) addresses 2 important clinical issues: how to screen patients for a wide range of neuropsychiatric disorders quickly and efficiently, and how to acquire independent verification of a patient's complaints. The NPQ is available over the Internet in adult and pediatric versions. The adult version of the NPQ consists of 207 simple questions about common symptoms of neuropsychiatric disorders. The NPQ scores patient and/or observer responses in terms of 20 symptom clusters: inattention, hyperactivity-impulsivity, learning problems, memory, anxiety, panic, agoraphobia, obsessions and compulsions, social anxiety, depression, mood instability, mania, aggression, psychosis, somatization, fatigue, sleep, suicide, pain, and substance abuse. The NPQ is reliable (patients tested twice, patient-observer pairs, 2 observers) and discriminates patients with different diagnoses. Scores generated by the NPQ correlate reasonably well with commonly used rating scales, and the test is sensitive to the effects of treatment. The NPQ is suitable for initial patient evaluations, and a short form is appropriate for follow-up assessment. The availability of a comprehensive computerized symptom checklist can help to make the day-to-day practice of psychiatry, neurology, and neuropsychology more objective. (+info)
Neuropsychological contributions to the early identification of Alzheimer's disease.
(64/169)