4.1 Article

Neuroanatomical correlates of the Benton Facial Recognition Test and Judgment of Line Orientation Test

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/13803390802317542

Keywords

Arthur Benton; Visuospatial; Visuoperceptual; Lesion-deficit; Right hemisphere

Funding

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) [P01 NS19632]
  2. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [R01 DA022549]
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [M01RR000059] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [P01NS019632] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA022549] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two of the most successful and widely used tests developed by Arthur Benton and colleagues are the Facial Recognition Test (FRT) and Judgment of Line Orientation Test (JLO), which probe visuoperceptual and visuospatial functions typically associated with right hemisphere structures, especially parietal, occipitoparietal, and occipitotemporal structures. Taking advantage of a large database of focal lesion patients (the Iowa Neurological Patient Registry), we used a new lesion-deficit mapping technique to investigate the neuroanatomical correlates of FRT and JLO performance. For the FRT, there were 201 patients with relevant data; of these, 38 were impaired on the FRT, and failure was most strongly associated with lesions in the right posterior-inferior parietal and right ventral occipitotemporal (fusiform gyrus) areas. For the JLO, there were 181 patients with relevant data; of these, 23 were impaired on the JLO, and failure was most strongly associated with lesions in the right posterior parietal region. These findings put new empirical teeth in the localizing value of the FRT and JLO tests, and they extend and sharpen previous work that had pointed to right posterior structures as being important for FRT and JLO performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available