Limits...
Where were those rabbits? A new paradigm to determine cerebral lateralisation of visuospatial memory function in children.

Groen MA, Whitehouse AJ, Badcock NA, Bishop DV - Neuropsychologia (2011)

Bottom Line: In a group of 24 adults we found this child-friendly version gave similar results to the original version of the task.In addition, fourteen children aged 6-8 years successfully completed the child-friendly fTCD task, showing a negative lateralisation index, indicating right hemispheric specialisation at the group level.Additionally, we assessed effects of task accuracy and reaction time on the lateralisation index.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. m.groen@pwo.ru.nl

Show MeSH
Scatterplot of adult laterality indices (LIs) for the Circles and the Rabbits paradigm. Black dots represent individuals who showed right- (filled dots) or left- (open dots) lateralised activation on both paradigms. Grey triangles represent individuals who showed right-lateralised activation on the Circles paradigm, but left-lateralised activation on the Rabbits paradigm (filled triangles) or vice versa (open triangle).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3198251&req=5

fig0010: Scatterplot of adult laterality indices (LIs) for the Circles and the Rabbits paradigm. Black dots represent individuals who showed right- (filled dots) or left- (open dots) lateralised activation on both paradigms. Grey triangles represent individuals who showed right-lateralised activation on the Circles paradigm, but left-lateralised activation on the Rabbits paradigm (filled triangles) or vice versa (open triangle).

Mentions: Fig. 2 shows a scatterplot of each participant's LI for the two paradigms. Visual inspection suggests a high-level of congruence between the LIs for the two paradigms, as was confirmed by a significant positive Pearson's correlation coefficient, r(24) = .75, p < 001. As well as computing a LI, it is possible to categorise a participant as being left- or right-lateralised or show bilateral activation, using the standard error of the LI across epochs to determine if the 95% confidence interval of that individual's LI overlaps with zero. When considered in this manner, 87.5% of participants were right-lateralised and 12.5% left-lateralised on the Circles paradigm. On the Rabbits paradigm, 83.3% were right-lateralised and 16.7% left-lateralised. Overlap between the categorisations based on the two paradigms was high: twenty-one (87.5%) individuals were in the same category for both paradigms (19 right-lateralised, 2 left-lateralised). The remaining individuals were categorised as right-lateralised on the Circles paradigm, but as left-lateralised (2) on the Rabbits paradigm or vice versa (1).


Where were those rabbits? A new paradigm to determine cerebral lateralisation of visuospatial memory function in children.

Groen MA, Whitehouse AJ, Badcock NA, Bishop DV - Neuropsychologia (2011)

Scatterplot of adult laterality indices (LIs) for the Circles and the Rabbits paradigm. Black dots represent individuals who showed right- (filled dots) or left- (open dots) lateralised activation on both paradigms. Grey triangles represent individuals who showed right-lateralised activation on the Circles paradigm, but left-lateralised activation on the Rabbits paradigm (filled triangles) or vice versa (open triangle).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3198251&req=5

fig0010: Scatterplot of adult laterality indices (LIs) for the Circles and the Rabbits paradigm. Black dots represent individuals who showed right- (filled dots) or left- (open dots) lateralised activation on both paradigms. Grey triangles represent individuals who showed right-lateralised activation on the Circles paradigm, but left-lateralised activation on the Rabbits paradigm (filled triangles) or vice versa (open triangle).
Mentions: Fig. 2 shows a scatterplot of each participant's LI for the two paradigms. Visual inspection suggests a high-level of congruence between the LIs for the two paradigms, as was confirmed by a significant positive Pearson's correlation coefficient, r(24) = .75, p < 001. As well as computing a LI, it is possible to categorise a participant as being left- or right-lateralised or show bilateral activation, using the standard error of the LI across epochs to determine if the 95% confidence interval of that individual's LI overlaps with zero. When considered in this manner, 87.5% of participants were right-lateralised and 12.5% left-lateralised on the Circles paradigm. On the Rabbits paradigm, 83.3% were right-lateralised and 16.7% left-lateralised. Overlap between the categorisations based on the two paradigms was high: twenty-one (87.5%) individuals were in the same category for both paradigms (19 right-lateralised, 2 left-lateralised). The remaining individuals were categorised as right-lateralised on the Circles paradigm, but as left-lateralised (2) on the Rabbits paradigm or vice versa (1).

Bottom Line: In a group of 24 adults we found this child-friendly version gave similar results to the original version of the task.In addition, fourteen children aged 6-8 years successfully completed the child-friendly fTCD task, showing a negative lateralisation index, indicating right hemispheric specialisation at the group level.Additionally, we assessed effects of task accuracy and reaction time on the lateralisation index.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. m.groen@pwo.ru.nl

Show MeSH