What traditional neuropsychological assessment got wrong about mild traumatic brain injury. I: historical perspective, contemporary neuroimaging overview and neuropathology update.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Erin David Bigler, Steven Allder, Benjamin T Dunkley, Jeff Victoroff
{"title":"What traditional neuropsychological assessment got wrong about mild traumatic brain injury. I: historical perspective, contemporary neuroimaging overview and neuropathology update.","authors":"Erin David Bigler, Steven Allder, Benjamin T Dunkley, Jeff Victoroff","doi":"10.1080/02699052.2025.2551162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Primary objective: </strong>This is Part I of a four-part review that examines traditional neuropsychological assessment methods and techniques in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Absence of neuropsychological findings has been used to argue no residual neuropathological effects from mTBI. However, given the current potential that advanced multimodality and quantitative neuroimaging can now demonstrate about underlying neurobiology of brain-behavior relations, this review shows that traditional neuropsychological test as standalone findings cannot directly address the underlying complexities of detecting mTBI neuropathology.</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong>This is a review.</p><p><strong>Methods and procedures: </strong>Traditional neuropsychological tests, their development, methods and conclusions over the past 50+ years are the centerpiece of this review juxtaposed with 21<sup>st</sup> century advanced neuroimaging and improved understanding of the neurobiology and potential neuropathology of mTBI.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and results: </strong>Traditional neuropsychological methods were never developed for detecting subtle changes in neurocognitive or neurobehavioral functioning as a standalone procedure and likewise, never designed to address the multifaceted issues related to symptom burden from having sustained a mTBI, especially after three-months post-injury. Advanced neuroimaging methods have the potential to inform the clinician and researcher about potential neurobiological factors to best understand relevant neuropsychological outcome factors associated with mTBI outcome. A model is presented that helps explain how adaptation and accommodation may occur after mTBI within the context of 'normal' traditional neuropsychological test findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The limitations of traditional neuropsychological testing in mTBI outlined within the context of how advanced neuroimaging improves our understanding of mTBI outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":9082,"journal":{"name":"Brain injury","volume":" ","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain injury","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2025.2551162","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Primary objective: This is Part I of a four-part review that examines traditional neuropsychological assessment methods and techniques in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Absence of neuropsychological findings has been used to argue no residual neuropathological effects from mTBI. However, given the current potential that advanced multimodality and quantitative neuroimaging can now demonstrate about underlying neurobiology of brain-behavior relations, this review shows that traditional neuropsychological test as standalone findings cannot directly address the underlying complexities of detecting mTBI neuropathology.

Research design: This is a review.

Methods and procedures: Traditional neuropsychological tests, their development, methods and conclusions over the past 50+ years are the centerpiece of this review juxtaposed with 21st century advanced neuroimaging and improved understanding of the neurobiology and potential neuropathology of mTBI.

Main outcome and results: Traditional neuropsychological methods were never developed for detecting subtle changes in neurocognitive or neurobehavioral functioning as a standalone procedure and likewise, never designed to address the multifaceted issues related to symptom burden from having sustained a mTBI, especially after three-months post-injury. Advanced neuroimaging methods have the potential to inform the clinician and researcher about potential neurobiological factors to best understand relevant neuropsychological outcome factors associated with mTBI outcome. A model is presented that helps explain how adaptation and accommodation may occur after mTBI within the context of 'normal' traditional neuropsychological test findings.

Conclusions: The limitations of traditional neuropsychological testing in mTBI outlined within the context of how advanced neuroimaging improves our understanding of mTBI outcome.

传统的神经心理学评估在轻度创伤性脑损伤上是错误的。一:历史观点、当代神经影像学概述和神经病理学最新进展。
主要目的:这是一篇四部分综述的第一部分,该综述探讨了轻度创伤性脑损伤(mTBI)中传统的神经心理学评估方法和技术。缺乏神经心理学的发现被用来争论mTBI没有残留的神经病理学影响。然而,鉴于目前先进的多模态和定量神经成像技术的潜力,现在可以证明大脑-行为关系的潜在神经生物学,这篇综述表明,传统的神经心理学测试作为独立的发现不能直接解决检测mTBI神经病理学的潜在复杂性。研究设计:这是一篇综述。方法和程序:传统的神经心理测试,他们的发展,方法和结论在过去的50多年是本综述的核心,并与21世纪先进的神经影像学和提高对mTBI的神经生物学和潜在神经病理学的理解。主要结果和结果:传统的神经心理学方法从未被开发用于检测神经认知或神经行为功能的细微变化,同样,从未被设计用于解决与持续mTBI症状负担相关的多方面问题,特别是在损伤后三个月。先进的神经影像学方法有可能告知临床医生和研究人员潜在的神经生物学因素,以最好地了解与mTBI结果相关的相关神经心理学结果因素。提出了一个模型,有助于解释在“正常”的传统神经心理学测试结果的背景下,mTBI后的适应和适应是如何发生的。结论:在先进的神经影像学如何提高我们对mTBI结果的理解的背景下,概述了传统神经心理学测试在mTBI中的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain injury
Brain injury 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.30%
发文量
148
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Brain Injury publishes critical information relating to research and clinical practice, adult and pediatric populations. The journal covers a full range of relevant topics relating to clinical, translational, and basic science research. Manuscripts address emergency and acute medical care, acute and post-acute rehabilitation, family and vocational issues, and long-term supports. Coverage includes assessment and interventions for functional, communication, neurological and psychological disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信