How Valuable are Clinical Neuropsychological Assessments? A Meta-analysis of Neuropsychological Tests with Comparison to Common Medical Tests and Treatments

There has been a general decrease in neuropsychological assessments at a time when medical diagnostic technology and treatments have expanded, leading to a faulty assumption that medical tests and healthcare treatments provide more reliable or valid data than psychological assessments. A landmark report from the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Psychological Assessment Work Group (PAWG) found that validity coefficients for many psychological tests were indistinguishable from those of medical tests (Meyer et al., 2001). An updated systematic review of the advancement in neuropsychological testing is essential to the continued advancement of the value of neuropsychological assessment in healthcare. This meta-analysis sought to (1) summarize effect sizes of neuroimaging to diagnose dementia, medications to treat chronic diseases, and neuropsychological tests to diagnose dementia and TBI, (2) determine the differences (if any) in effect sizes between medical domains, and (3) determine the differences (if any) in effect sizes between medical domains and neuropsychological tests. EBSCO networks were searched for original research examining the efficacy of neuroimaging for Alzheimer’s Disease (AD),neuropsychological tests for AD and traumatic brain injury (TBI), and medication to treat memory impairment and cardiovascular events between clinical and control samples. Studies were coded using a complex multi-comparison, outcome, and subgroup schema. Data were analyzed under random-effects modeling. Of 6,668 studies identified, 78 were retained for primary and ancillary meta-analyses (715 effect sizes extracted; 35,810 clinical and 42,964 control participants represented). Primary results indicated a significant difference between domains, such that neuroimaging (g = -1.603) and neuropsychological tests (g = -1.591) both yielded greater effect sizes than medication studies (g = -0.009]. Secondary results indicated the AD neuropsychological test effect size [g = -2.213) was significantly different than the TBI neuropsychological test efficacy [g = -0.649; Q(1) = 42.821, p = 0.000]. Additionally, results indicated nonsignificant effect sizes for both memory impairment medications (g = -.052) and aspirin for cardiovascular events (g = .017). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic efficacy of neuroimaging and neuropsychological tests were both substantial and non-significantly different from one another. These findings provide clinicians and consumers with convincing evidence that neuropsychological tests are a reliable diagnostic tool for people with acquired and neurodegenerative brain disorders

Domain-general and Domain-specific Patterns of Activity Support Metacognition in Human Prefrontal Cortex

Metacognition is the capacity to evaluate the success of one's own cognitive processes in various domains; for example, memory and perception. It remains controversial whether metacognition relies on a domain-general resource that is applied to different tasks or if self-evaluative processes are domain specific. Here, we investigated this issue directly by examining the neural substrates engaged when metacognitive judgments were made by human participants of both sexes during perceptual and memory tasks matched for stimulus and performance characteristics. By comparing patterns of fMRI activity while subjects evaluated their performance, we revealed both domain-specific and domain-general metacognitive representations. Multivoxel activity patterns in anterior prefrontal cortex predicted levels of confidence in a domain-specific fashion, whereas domain-general signals predicting confidence and accuracy were found in a widespread network in the frontal and posterior midline. The demonstration of domain-specific metacognitive representations suggests the presence of a content-rich mechanism available to introspection and cognitive control

Processing of primary and secondary rewards: A quantitative meta-analysis and review of human functional neuroimaging studies

One fundamental question concerning brain reward mechanisms is to determine how reward-related activity is influenced by the nature of rewards. Here, we review the neuroimaging literature and explicitly assess to what extent the representations of primary and secondary rewards overlap in the human brain. To achieve this goal, we performed an activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis of 87 studies (1452 subjects) comparing the brain responses to monetary, erotic and food reward outcomes. Those three rewards robustly engaged a common brain network including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, ventral striatum, amygdala, anterior insula and mediodorsal thalamus, although with some variations in the intensity and location of peak activity. Money-specific responses were further observed in the most anterior portion of the orbitofrontal cortex, supporting the idea that abstract secondary rewards are represented in evolutionary more recent brain regions. In contrast, food and erotic (i.e. primary) rewards were more strongly represented in the anterior insula, while erotic stimuli elicited particularly robust responses in the amygdala. Together, these results indicate that the computation of experienced reward value does not only recruit a core "reward system" but also reward type-dependent brain structures

Cognitive impairment and decline in cognitively normal older adults with high amyloid-β: A meta-analysis

AbstractIntroductionThis meta-analysis aimed to characterize the nature and magnitude of amyloid (Aβ)-related cognitive impairment and decline in cognitively normal (CN) older individuals.MethodMEDLINE Ovid was searched from 2012 to June 2016 for studies reporting relationships between cerebrospinal fluid or positron emission tomography (PET) Aβ levels and cognitive impairment (cross-sectional) and decline (longitudinal) in CN older adults. Neuropsychological data were classified into domains of episodic memory, executive function, working memory, processing speed, visuospatial function, semantic memory, and global cognition. Type of Aβ measure, how Aβ burden was analyzed, inclusion of control variables, and clinical criteria used to exclude participants, were considered as moderators. Random-effects models were used for analyses with effect sizes expressed as Cohen's d.ResultsA total of 38 studies met inclusion criteria contributing 30 cross-sectional (N = 5005) and 14 longitudinal (N = 2584) samples. Aβ-related cognitive impairment was observed for global cognition (d = 0.32), visuospatial function (d = 0.25), processing speed (d = 0.18), episodic memory, and executive function (both d's = 0.15), with decline observed for global cognition (d = 0.30), semantic memory (d = 0.28), visuospatial function (d = 0.25), and episodic memory (d = 0.24). Aβ-related impairment was moderated by age, amyloid measure, type of analysis, and inclusion of control variables and decline moderated by amyloid measure, type of analysis, inclusion of control variables, and exclusion criteria used.DiscussionCN older adults with high Aβ show a small general cognitive impairment and small to moderate decline in episodic memory, visuospatial function, semantic memory, and global cognition

Applicability of the ACE-III and RBANS cognitive tests for the detection of Alcohol-Related Brain Damage

Background and aims: Recent investigations have highlighted the value of neuropsychological testing for the assessment and screening of Alcohol-Related Brain Damage (ARBD). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the suitability of the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE-III) and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) for this purpose. Methods: Comparing 28 participants with ARBD (11 with Korsakoff’s Syndrome and 17 with the umbrella “ARBD” diagnosis) and 30 alcohol-dependent participants without ARBD (ALs) we calculated Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistics, sensitivity and specificity values, base-rate adjusted predictive values, and likelihood ratios for both tests. Results: High levels of screening accuracy were found for the total scores of both the ACE-III (AUC = .823, 95% CIs [.714, .932], SE = .056; optimal cut-off ≤86: sensitivity = 82%, specificity = 73%) and RBANS (AUC = .846, 95% CIs [.746, .947], SE = .052; optimal cut-off ≤83: sensitivity = 89%, specificity = 67%) at multiple cut-off points. Removing participants with a history of polysubstance from the samples (10 ALs and 1 ARBD) improved the diagnostic capabilities of the RBANS substantially (AUC = .915, 95% CIs [.831, .999], SE = .043; optimal cut-off ≤85: sensitivity = 98%, specificity = 80%), while only minor improvements to the ACE-III’s accuracy were observed (AUC = .854, 95% CIs [.744, .963], SE = .056; optimal cut-off ≤88: sensitivity = 85%, specificity = 75%). Conclusions: Overall, both the ACE-III and RBANS are suitable tools for ARBD screening within an alcohol-dependent population, though the RBANS is the superior of the two. Clinicians using these tools for ARBD screening should be cautious of false-positive outcomes and should therefore combine them with other assessment methods (e.g., neuroimaging, clinical observations) and more detailed neuropsychological testing before reaching diagnostic decisions