Regional cerebral blood flow during the wisconsin card sorting test in normal subjects studied by xenon-133 dynamic SPECT: Comparison of absolute values, percent distribution values and covariance analysis
Abstract
We studied regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) by xenon-133 dynamic single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in 17 normal volunteers who were performing the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), a task that is particularly sensitive to disturbance of the prefrontal cortex, and a simple matching-to-sample task (BAR) as a sensorimotor control. Three methods for statistical analysis of regional "subtraction" data were used: absolute rCBF values, percent distribution values, and means adjusted for global CBF changes (covariance analysis). The absolute values had high variance, due to the combination of interindividual differences in global flow and intra-individual variation, and showed no statistically significant regional changes. This variation was greatly reduced by percent values and covariance analysis, which had quite similar outcomes. With both methods, significant increases of rCBF during the WCST as compared with the BAR were seen in the right anterior dorsolateral prefrontal and left occipital cortices, and reduction of rCBF in the left pararolandic region. Moreover, significant correlations with performance were found in the medial regions of the frontal lobes, with opposite trends for the right and left hemisphere. The posterior dorsolateral prefrontal region showed a negative correlation with sensory-motor frequency, an index related to the task's difficulty. These results are consistent with previous findings using other rCBF techniques and confirm the stat…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Functional imaging studies show that a network of frontal and nonfrontal brain regions is involved in Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance.
“These results are congruent with those from recent functional imaging studies that show a network of frontal and nonfrontal brain regions to be involved in WCST performance (e.g., Marenco et al., 1993; Mentzel et al., 1998)”
From The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology (2006) · cites this paper as Marenco et al., 1993
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 84
- Authors
- Marenco, S., Coppola, R., Daniel, D. G., Zigun, J. R., & Weinberger, D. R.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Mental Health (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Marenco, Stefano
- Venue
- Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1993-10
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 177-192
- ISSN
- 0925-4927 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088659780
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Keywords
- regional cerebral blood flow, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, covariance analysis, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, occipital cortex, parietal cortex, sensorimotor control, task difficulty, hemispheric lateralization, normal subjects
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Regional Blood Flow, Task Performance and Analysis, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review