scholarly journals Assessment of performance of Saudi children with learning disabilities by using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 323
Author(s):  
Nouf Al Backer ◽  
Koloud Ateeq Alharbi ◽  
Abdulrahman Alfahadi ◽  
Syed Shahid Habib ◽  
Shahid Bashir
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Neuropsychological Test ◽  
Motor Planning ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Simple Reaction Time Task ◽  
Extradimensional Shift ◽  
Planning Task

Background: The neuropsychological tests and its subtests are composed of the motor planning task; simple reaction time task and the intradimensional/extradimensional shift (IED) task from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) were developed to examine specific components of cognition. The main objective of this study was to examine the reliability of these CANTAB subtests in pediatric patients with learning disabilities (LD) in Saudi Arabia. Methods: We administered the CANTAB subset test to 92 participants with LD and 68 controls with no LD. The tests performed were motor planning task (MOT), simple reaction time task (SRT) and the intradimensional/extradimensional shift (IED). Results: There was no significant age difference between the case and the control group (case: 9.2 ± 2.4 years versus controls: 9.0 ± 1.6 years, p=0.544). The IED and MOT were significantly longer among patients with LD versus control (p <0.001). LD cases had a longer SRT time than controls (cases: 1050.4 ± 626.5 versus controls: 815.5 ± 133.9, p=0.003). LD patients completed an average of 3.0 stages, than the controls, who were able to complete a mean of 8.4 IED stages (p<0.001). SRT was significantly longer in the case group (965.9 ± 716.4) compared to the controls (747.7 ± 120.7, p=0.014). LD cases made more errors in the motor screening tasks (MOT-Error) compared to the control group (case: 14.6 ± 4.5 versus controls: 12.4 ± 2.7, p<0.001). Conclusion: Patients with LD have poor CANTAB subtest results. If these CANTAB subtests do measure cognitive function, this adds to the accumulating evidence of cognitive impairment association in LD, and such studies should remain an active area of research.

scholarly journals Assessment of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery test in Saudi children with learning disabilities: A case-control study

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 323
Author(s):  
Nouf Al Backer ◽  
Koloud Ateeq Alharbi ◽  
Abdulrahman Alfahadi ◽  
Syed Shahid Habib ◽  
Shahid Bashir
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Neuropsychological Test ◽  
Motor Planning ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Simple Reaction Time Task ◽  
Extradimensional Shift ◽  
Planning Task

Background: The neuropsychological tests and its subtests are composed of the motor planning task; simple reaction time task and the intradimensional/extradimensional shift (IED) task from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) were developed to examine specific components of cognition. The main objective of this study was to examine the reliability of these CANTAB subtests in pediatric patients with learning disabilities (LD) in Saudi Arabia. Methods: We administered the CANTAB subset test to 92 participants with LD and 68 controls with no LD. The tests performed were motor planning task (MOT), simple reaction time task (SRT) and the intradimensional/extradimensional shift (IED). Results: There was no significant age difference between the case and the control group (case: 9.2 ± 2.4 years versus controls: 9.0 ± 1.6 years, p=0.544). The IED and MOT were significantly longer among patients with LD versus control (p <0.001). LD cases had a longer SRT time than controls (cases: 1050.4 ± 626.5 versus controls: 815.5 ± 133.9, p=0.003). LD patients completed an average of 3.0 stages, than the controls, who were able to complete a mean of 8.4 IED stages (p<0.001). SRT was significantly longer in the case group (965.9 ± 716.4) compared to the controls (747.7 ± 120.7, p=0.014). LD cases made more errors in the motor screening tasks (MOT-Error) compared to the control group (case: 14.6 ± 4.5 versus controls: 12.4 ± 2.7, p<0.001). Conclusion: Patients with LD have poor CANTAB subtest results. If these CANTAB subtests do measure cognitive function, this adds to the accumulating evidence of cognitive impairment association in LD, and such studies should remain an active area of research.

scholarly journals Manipulations of the Response-Stimulus Intervals as a Factor Inducing Controlled Amount of Reaction Time Intra-Individual Variability

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 669
Author(s):  
Paweł Krukow ◽  
Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik ◽  
Arkadiusz Podkowiński
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Simple Reaction Time Task ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Response Stimulus

Aggrandized fluctuations in the series of reaction times (RTs) are a very sensitive marker of neurocognitive disorders present in neuropsychiatric populations, pathological ageing and in patients with acquired brain injury. Even though it was documented that processing inconsistency founds a background of higher-order cognitive functions disturbances, there is a vast heterogeneity regarding types of task used to compute RT-related variability, which impedes determining the relationship between elementary and more complex cognitive processes. Considering the above, our goal was to develop a relatively new assessment method based on a simple reaction time paradigm, conducive to eliciting a controlled range of intra-individual variability. It was hypothesized that performance variability might be induced by manipulation of response-stimulus interval’s length and regularity. In order to verify this hypothesis, a group of 107 healthy students was tested using a series of digitalized tasks and their results were analyzed using parametric and ex-Gaussian statistics of RTs distributional markers. In general, these analyses proved that intra-individual variability might be evoked by a given type of response-stimulus interval manipulation even when it is applied to the simple reaction time task. Collected outcomes were discussed with reference to neuroscientific concepts of attentional resources and functional neural networks.

Reaction time and spinal excitability in a simple reaction time task

1976 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia T. Michie ◽  
Alex M. Clarke ◽  
John D. Sinden ◽  
Leonard C.T. Glue
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Simple Reaction Time Task ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Time Task ◽  
Spinal Excitability

Evidence for interhemispheric motor-level transfer in a simple reaction time task: an EEG study

1999 ◽  
Vol 128 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 256-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregor Thut ◽  
Claude-Alain Hauert ◽  
Stéphanie Morand ◽  
Margitta Seeck ◽  
Theodor Landis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Simple Reaction Time Task ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Time Task

Discrete Finger Response Latencies in a Simple Reaction Time Task

1991 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 863-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jos J. Adam ◽  
Loe M. A. Van Veggel
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Multiple Response ◽  
Simple Reaction Time Task ◽  
Response Latencies ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Time Task ◽  
Single Response

The present study evaluated the potential for neuroanatomical factors to operate in a simple reaction time task. That is, response latencies were recorded for all ten fingers on a Donders' A reaction time task. Two finger-placement conditions were used, a single response key condition and a multiple response key condition. This latter condition required subjects to place all ten fingers on response keys. 30 male, right-handed subjects participated. No significant effects were found, indicating that there are no intrinsically slow or fast fingers. This finding is discussed in the context of reaction time differences between individual stimulus-response (finger) pairs in choice-reaction time tasks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document