Premium
The memory assessment scales and lateralized temporal lobe epilepsy
Author(s) -
Loring David W.,
Hermann Bruce P.,
Lee Gregory P.,
Drane Daniel L.,
Meador Kimford J.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(200004)56:4<563::aid-jclp9>3.0.co;2-k
Subject(s) - verbal memory , psychology , visual memory , temporal lobe , audiology , context (archaeology) , cognitive psychology , epilepsy , cognition , neuroscience , medicine , paleontology , biology
We report Memory Assessment Scales (MAS) performance in 101 patients with unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE; left, n = 51; right, n = 50) with left cerebral language dominance. A significant multivariate group effect was present for the major summary indices (Verbal Memory, Visual Memory, and Global Memory, p < .04). Univariate analyses revealed no significant differences for either the Global Memory or Verbal Memory summary scores, although a significant group difference was present for Visual Memory ( p < .04). The Verbal Memory–Visual Memory discrepancy score was significantly different between right and left TLE groups ( p < .004). Verbal Memory scores were at least 14 points lower than Visual Memory scores in 34 patients (left = 20, 59%; right = 14, 41%). Visual Memory scores were at least 14 points lower than Verbal Memory performance in 20 patients (left = 5, 25%; right = 15, 75%). Diagnostic efficiency statistics show higher sensitivity but lower specificity in group classification for left TLE patients. These data suggest that the MAS is sensitive to material‐specific memory deficits associated with a unilateral temporal lobe seizure focus. However, over one‐third of the patients (19/54) with at least a 14‐point Verbal Memory–Visual Memory discrepancy were classified incorrectly. The MAS, like other material‐specific memory measures, should be interpreted within the context of other clinical findings. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 56: 563–570, 2000.