English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Two studies examined the Warrington Recognition Memory Test (RMT) discrepancy index (Words-Faces) in a large sample of patients heterogeneous with respect to age, education, gender, and neurological diagnosis. In Study 1 (N = 504) we used cutoffs from the Words-Faces discrepancy scores derived from Warrington's original validation sample to attempt to accurately classify patients with left, right, or diffuse brain damage. Sensitivity for left hemisphere patients (Faces > Words) was 10% with a specificity of 88%, whereas sensitivity for right hemisphere patients (Words > Faces) was 48% with a specificity of 86%. For patients with diffuse brain damage (Words = Faces) sensitivity was 69% and specificity was 38%. In Study 2 (N = 263), we examined the relationship between the Words-Faces discrepancy score and Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R; Wechsler, 1981) Logical Memory and Visual Reproduction subtests. Contrary to predictions, patients with Words > Faces performed better on both WMS-R subtests; the Faces > Words discrepancy was not related to Visual Reproduction performance. Potential reasons for these negative findings are discussed, as well as cautions for future RMT discrepancy index use.

Diagnostic Efficiency and Material Specificity of the Warrington Recognition Memory Test: A Collaborative Multisite Investigation