Object-based neglect in number processing

Table 2 Scores of individual participants in the NET (Neglect Test), in the MMSE (Mini Mental State Examination), in the SIDAM (Structured Interview for the Diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer type, Multi infarct dementia and dementias of other etiology), in the adjusted SIDAM, and in the EC 301 R (German adaptation of the EC 301 assessment battery for brain damaged adults[36])

	NET	MMSE	SIDAM	adj. SIDAM	EC 301 R
Neglect group
R.E.	135.0/170	26/30	42/55^a	37/45	94/135
L.A.	70.0/170	24/30	42/55^a	37/45	115/135^b
R.A.	64.0/170	24/30	40/55^a	35/45	78/135^b
K.W.	86.0/170	25/30	44/55^a	40/45	84/135^b
P.A.	115.0/170	25/30	39/55^a	35/45	110/135
F.J.	100.5/170	25/30	41/55^a	35/45	108/135
Patient control group
C.K.	170.0/170	28/30	51/55	44/45	127/135
S.G.	169.5/170	29/30	54/55	44/45	135/135
G.G.	169.5/170	30/30	52/55	42/45	131/135
J.G.	169.5/170	30/30	53/55	43/45	131/135
F.E.	169.0/170	29/30	48/55	38/45	129/135
P.T.	165.5/170	29/30	49/55	39/45	105/135
Healthy control group
L.I.		28/30	48/55	39/45	134/135
L.J.		30/30	53/55	43/45	135/135
D.M.		29/30	52/55	42/45	135/135
S.P.		28/30	51/55	42/45	125/135
L.G.		28/30	52/55	42/45	133/135
R.W.		30/30	55/55	45/45	132/135

a Due to neglect symptoms some items of the SIDAM could not be successfully processed (e.g., copying shapes).
b Due to neglect symptoms some items of the EC 301 R could not be successfully processed (e.g., counting dots).
Please note that the neglect group differs significantly from both control groups, while there are no significant differences between the control groups. In particular, the neglect patient group differs from the control patient group regarding NET [t(5) = 3.33; p < .05], MMSE [t(5) = 25.80; p < .001], the SIDAM [t(5) = 18.46; p < .001], adjusted SIDAM [t(5) = 5.38; p < .01] as well as the EC 301 R [t(5) = 5.02; p < .01]. Similarly, the neglect patient group differs from the healthy controls regarding MMSE [t(5) = 16.98; p < .001], the SIDAM [t(5) = 20.78; p < .001], adjusted SIDAM [t(5) = 7.89; p < .001] as well as the EC 301 R[t(5) = 8.79; p < .001]. However, there was no difference between the two control groups as regards MMSE, SIDAM, adj. SIDAM and EC 301 R [all t(5) < 1.38; p > .23].

ISSN: 1744-9081