胼胝体切开术后的半球间整合:波芬伯格和冗余目标范例的元分析

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-09 DOI:10.1007/s11065-022-09569-w
René Westerhausen
{"title":"胼胝体切开术后的半球间整合:波芬伯格和冗余目标范例的元分析","authors":"René Westerhausen","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09569-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The central role of the corpus callosum in integrating perception and cognition across the cerebral hemispheres makes it highly desirable for clinical and basic research to have a repertoire of experimental paradigms assessing callosal functioning. Here, the objective was to assess the validity of two such paradigms (Poffenberger, redundant-target paradigms) by conducting single-step meta-analyses on individual case data of callosotomy patients. Studies were identified by systematic literature search (source: Pubmed and WebOfKnowledge, date: 07.03.2022) and all studies were included that reported callosotomy case data for either paradigm. Twenty-two studies (38 unique cases) provided 116 observations of the crossed-uncrossed difference (CUD) for the Poffenberger paradigm, while ten studies (22 cases, 103 observations) provided bilateral redundancy gain (bRG) measures. Using linear-mixed models with \"individual\" and \"experiment\" as random-effects variable, the mean CUD was estimated at 60.6 ms (CI<sub>95%</sub>: 45.3; 75.9) for commissurotomy, 43.5 ms (26.7; 60.2) for complete callosotomy, and 8.8 ms (1.1; 16.6) for partial anterior-medial callosotomy patients. The estimates of commissurotomy/callosotomy patients differed significantly from patients with partial callosotomy and healthy controls. The mean bRG<sub>min</sub> (minimum unilateral reference) was estimated at 42.8 ms (27.1;58.4) for patients with complete and 30.8 ms (16.8; 44.7) for patients with partial callosotomy, both differing significantly from controls. One limitation was that different formulas for bRG were used, making it necessary to split the sample and reducing test power of some analyses. Nevertheless, the present findings suggest that both paradigms assess interhemispheric callosal integration, confirming their construct validity, but likely test distinct callosal functions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"872-890"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10769931/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interhemispheric Integration after Callosotomy: A Meta-Analysis of Poffenberger and Redundant-Target Paradigms.\",\"authors\":\"René Westerhausen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11065-022-09569-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The central role of the corpus callosum in integrating perception and cognition across the cerebral hemispheres makes it highly desirable for clinical and basic research to have a repertoire of experimental paradigms assessing callosal functioning. Here, the objective was to assess the validity of two such paradigms (Poffenberger, redundant-target paradigms) by conducting single-step meta-analyses on individual case data of callosotomy patients. Studies were identified by systematic literature search (source: Pubmed and WebOfKnowledge, date: 07.03.2022) and all studies were included that reported callosotomy case data for either paradigm. Twenty-two studies (38 unique cases) provided 116 observations of the crossed-uncrossed difference (CUD) for the Poffenberger paradigm, while ten studies (22 cases, 103 observations) provided bilateral redundancy gain (bRG) measures. Using linear-mixed models with \\\"individual\\\" and \\\"experiment\\\" as random-effects variable, the mean CUD was estimated at 60.6 ms (CI<sub>95%</sub>: 45.3; 75.9) for commissurotomy, 43.5 ms (26.7; 60.2) for complete callosotomy, and 8.8 ms (1.1; 16.6) for partial anterior-medial callosotomy patients. The estimates of commissurotomy/callosotomy patients differed significantly from patients with partial callosotomy and healthy controls. The mean bRG<sub>min</sub> (minimum unilateral reference) was estimated at 42.8 ms (27.1;58.4) for patients with complete and 30.8 ms (16.8; 44.7) for patients with partial callosotomy, both differing significantly from controls. One limitation was that different formulas for bRG were used, making it necessary to split the sample and reducing test power of some analyses. Nevertheless, the present findings suggest that both paradigms assess interhemispheric callosal integration, confirming their construct validity, but likely test distinct callosal functions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"872-890\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10769931/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09569-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09569-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

胼胝体在整合大脑半球的感知和认知方面发挥着核心作用,因此临床和基础研究都非常需要一套评估胼胝体功能的实验范式。本文旨在通过对胼胝体切除术患者的个案数据进行单步荟萃分析,评估两种此类范式(波芬伯格范式和冗余目标范式)的有效性。通过系统文献检索(来源:Pubmed 和 WebOfKnowledge,日期:2022 年 3 月 7 日)确定了相关研究,并纳入了所有报告了任一范式的胼胝体切开术病例数据的研究。22项研究(38个独特病例)提供了116个波芬伯格范式的交叉不交叉差异(CUD)观测值,而10项研究(22个病例,103个观测值)提供了双侧冗余增益(bRG)测量值。使用以 "个体 "和 "实验 "为随机效应变量的线性混合模型,估计神经胼胝体切除术患者的平均 CUD 为 60.6 毫秒(CI95%:45.3;75.9),完全胼胝体切除术患者的平均 CUD 为 43.5 毫秒(26.7;60.2),部分前内侧胼胝体切除术患者的平均 CUD 为 8.8 毫秒(1.1;16.6)。胼胝体部分切除术/胼胝体切开术患者的估计值与胼胝体部分切除术患者和健康对照组有显著差异。据估计,完全胼胝体切除术患者的平均 bRGmin(最小单侧参考值)为 42.8 毫秒(27.1;58.4),而部分胼胝体切除术患者的平均 bRGmin 为 30.8 毫秒(16.8;44.7),两者均与对照组有显著差异。一个限制因素是使用了不同的 bRG 计算公式,因此有必要对样本进行分割,从而降低了某些分析的测试能力。尽管如此,目前的研究结果表明,这两种范式都能评估大脑半球间的胼胝体整合,证实了它们的建构有效性,但很可能测试的是不同的胼胝体功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Interhemispheric Integration after Callosotomy: A Meta-Analysis of Poffenberger and Redundant-Target Paradigms.

Interhemispheric Integration after Callosotomy: A Meta-Analysis of Poffenberger and Redundant-Target Paradigms.

The central role of the corpus callosum in integrating perception and cognition across the cerebral hemispheres makes it highly desirable for clinical and basic research to have a repertoire of experimental paradigms assessing callosal functioning. Here, the objective was to assess the validity of two such paradigms (Poffenberger, redundant-target paradigms) by conducting single-step meta-analyses on individual case data of callosotomy patients. Studies were identified by systematic literature search (source: Pubmed and WebOfKnowledge, date: 07.03.2022) and all studies were included that reported callosotomy case data for either paradigm. Twenty-two studies (38 unique cases) provided 116 observations of the crossed-uncrossed difference (CUD) for the Poffenberger paradigm, while ten studies (22 cases, 103 observations) provided bilateral redundancy gain (bRG) measures. Using linear-mixed models with "individual" and "experiment" as random-effects variable, the mean CUD was estimated at 60.6 ms (CI95%: 45.3; 75.9) for commissurotomy, 43.5 ms (26.7; 60.2) for complete callosotomy, and 8.8 ms (1.1; 16.6) for partial anterior-medial callosotomy patients. The estimates of commissurotomy/callosotomy patients differed significantly from patients with partial callosotomy and healthy controls. The mean bRGmin (minimum unilateral reference) was estimated at 42.8 ms (27.1;58.4) for patients with complete and 30.8 ms (16.8; 44.7) for patients with partial callosotomy, both differing significantly from controls. One limitation was that different formulas for bRG were used, making it necessary to split the sample and reducing test power of some analyses. Nevertheless, the present findings suggest that both paradigms assess interhemispheric callosal integration, confirming their construct validity, but likely test distinct callosal functions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信