Cited by 1,078Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and Memory

Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): A Factor Analytic Study of a Large Sample of Normal Elderly Volunteers

Robbins, T.W., James, M., Owen, A.M., Sahakian, B.J., McInnes, L., Rabbitt, P.·1994·Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders

Abstract

The CANTAB battery was administered to a large group (n = 787) of elderly volunteers in the age range from 55 to 80 years. This battery, which is based on tests used to identify the neural substrates of learning and memory in non-human primates, has now been extensively used in the assessment of various forms of dementia and also validated on patients with neurosurgical lesions of the frontal and temporal lobes. The tests employed were pattern and spatial recognition, simultaneous and delayed matching to sample, learning of visuospatial paired associates, a matching to sample, reaction time task and a test of spatial working memory. The sample was banded into different IQ bands based on performance on 5 standard tests of intelligence. The MMSE was also administered to exclude cases of possible dementia (n = 16) in the normal sample. In general, performance declined with age and IQ, but these factors did not interact. A factor analysis (with varimax rotation) identified 4 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which accounted for over 60% of the variance. Factor 1 was equated with general learning and memory ability and loaded significantly with the Intelligence scores; factor 2 was related to speed of responding and loaded most heavily with Age. Comparisons were also made of performance on CANTAB of those subjects with dementing scores on the MMSE and the lowest 5th percentile of the population sample. The results are discussed in terms of the utility of the CANTAB battery…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000106735

Cites

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.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robbins, T. W., James, M., Owen, A. M., Sahakian, B. J., McInnes, L., & Rabbitt, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
1994
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
266-281
ISSN
  • 1420-8008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9824
OpenAlex
W2047587201
Cited by
1,078
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 83 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 31
FWCI
7.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
CANTAB, normal aging, elderly volunteers, learning and memory, spatial working memory, reaction time, pattern recognition, matching-to-sample, dementia assessment, factor structure, processing speed
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Analysis of Variance, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Mental Status Schedule, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reaction Time, Reference Values, Space Perception

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