Cited by 136Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesCognitive Functions and Memory

Frontal lobe lesions, diffuse damage, and neuropsychological functioning in traumatic brain-injured patients

Anderson, Carol V., Bigler, Erin D., Blatter, Duane D.·1995·Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

Abstract

This study quantified lesion volume in relation to damage location and executive functioning in traumatic brain-injured (TBI) patients. Magnetic resonance (MR) scans of 68 TBI patients were analyzed by taking volumetric measures of lesion sites. Patients were grouped according to the presence/absence of frontal lobe lesions. Measures of frontal lesion volume were studied as predictors for outcome on designated tests of executive functioning (Halstead Category Test and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test). Results showed no significant differences in level of deficit between groups. In addition, no significant differences were found between groups on other tests of neuropsychological functioning (Trail Making Test, Parts A and B, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised). These results suggest that tests that are traditionally used to detect "frontal lobe" damage may not be adequate for distinguishing specific frontal lobe dysfunction, and do not add anything unique about frontal lobe integrity and neuropsychological functioning in TBI patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01688639508402438

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Milner's finding of a specific dorsolateral prefrontal deficit on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test has never been entirely replicated by Milner or any other investigator, although there are many failures to replicate.

    “However this finding has never to our knowledge been entirely replicated, either by Milner or by any other investigator, although there are many failures to replicate (see, e.g., Anderson et al., 1995; Corcoran & Upton, 1993; van den Broek et al., 1993).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, C. V., Bigler, E. D., & Blatter, D. D.
Affiliations
Brigham Young University (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
Published
1995-12
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
900-908
ISSN
  • 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 1380-3395
  • 1744-411X
OpenAlex
W2076976327
Cited by
136
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, frontal lobe lesions, executive function, lesion volume, diffuse brain damage, neuropsychological outcomes, Halstead Category Test, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Trail Making Test, WAIS-R, frontal lobe dysfunction
MeSH terms
Brain Damage, Chronic, Brain Injuries, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales

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