MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150027361 · doi:10.1093/brain/awt228

Impairment only on the fluency subtest of the Frontal Assessment Battery after prefrontal lesions

2013· article· en· W2150027361 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine Chapados, Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyFrontal lobePrefrontal cortexVerbal fluency testAudiologyNeuroscienceLateralization of brain functionCognitive flexibilityFrontal cortexCognitive psychologyCognitionMedicineNeuropsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Frontal Assessment Battery is a set of six subtests that is used widely to assess frontal cortical executive dysfunction. Performance on the Frontal Assessment Battery has been shown to be sensitive to various neurodegenerative diseases, but it has never been shown to be sensitive to damage restricted to the frontal cortex. Thus, despite its wide use, it has never been validated on an appropriate population of patients with frontal lesions. The present study shows that, of the six subtests that comprise the Frontal Assessment Battery, only performance on the verbal fluency subtest (mental flexibility) was specifically sensitive to injury restricted to the frontal cortex. Performance of patients with damage to the dorsal part of the medial frontal region in the language-dominant left hemisphere was impaired. None of these patients was aphasic at the time of testing. The critical region in the dorsomedial frontal cortex includes the supplementary speech zone but is not restricted to it: it extends into the cingulate motor region and the paracingulate cortex as well as the medial prefrontal areas 8 and 9. The results indicate that the Frontal Assessment Battery is not a sensitive measure of prefrontal cortical dysfunction, except for the verbal fluency subtest.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207