Cognitive Neuropsychology Methods

1
Cognitive Neuropsychology Methods

• Aims and Objectives
• By the end of this lecture you will have learned
• The key methodological approaches used in
  cognitive neuropsychology
• The importance of double dissociations in
  cognitive neuropsychology
• The main arguments on both sides of the
  single-case vs group study debate
• Required Reading
• Parkin, Ch1 or EY, Ch1.
• Vallar G (1991) Current methodological issues in
  human neuropsychology. In F Boller J Grafman
  (Eds) Handbook of neuropsychology, Vol 5.
  P343-378. This chapter contains a good discussion
  on assumptions too.
• Caramazza A (1984) The logic of
  neuropsychological research and the problem of
  patient classification in aphasia. Brain and
  Language, 21, 9-20.

2
Cognitive Neuropsychology Methods

• Associations
• Dissociations
• Double Dissociations
• Single case vs group studies
• Functional neuroimaging.
• Neural network modelling
• Animal studies

3
Associations

• An association implies a link or connection
  between two phenomena.
• Between two cognitive deficits (e.g.
  comprehending written and spoken words)
• Between a cognitive deficit and a lesion site
  (e.g. left hemineglect and right parietal lobe
  lesions)
• Problems - cant determine causality, nearly
  always exceptions found.
• Association may occur for biological rather than
  cognitive reasons.

4
Dissociations

• Patient A Performance on task X impaired, but
  performance on task Y intact
• Performance on tasks X and Y dissociates
• E.g. task X word recognition, task Y face
  recognition
• Implication is that face recognition and word
  recognition are handled by different sets of
  cognitive processes, and only the word
  recognition system is damaged in paient A.

5
Dissociations

• Shallice (1988) described 3 types of dissociations

• Classical dissociations presumed to be the most
  powerful

6
Dissociations

• Interpretation of dissociations is not always
  straightforward.
• It could be argued that tasks X and Y involve one
  process (e.g. recognition of "something") but
  that word recognition is a very hard task and
  face recognition is a much simpler task.
• Maybe brain damage affects difficult tasks first?
• Task difficulty effect / resource artefact

7
Double Dissociations

• But
• Patient B Performance on task X intact, but
  performance on task Y impaired
• E.g. Facial recognition impaired but word
  recognition intact
• The performance of patients A B provide a
• DOUBLE DISSOCIATION
• Strong evidence that there are cognitive
  processes involved in Task X that are not
  involved in Task Y and vice versa
• Patients don't have to be perfectly intact on
  either task - they just need to be consistently
  better at one task than the other

8
How important are DDs?

• DDs traditionally assumed to be gold standard
  in CN research BUT - not all CNs agree -
• Caramazza argues that associations, dissociations
  and DDs are all equally valid forms of inference
  (if the cognitive model is well developed)
• A DD between two tasks does not necessarily imply
  a DD between cognitive processes (Shallice, 1988)
• Most CNs agree that converging evidence is
  desirable
• The utility of DDs is predicated on modularity
  being true - Van Orden et al, 2001 Endless
  fractionation

9
Single case vs Group studiesThe concept of
syndromes

• Traditional neuropsychology often based on
  syndromes - a collection of symptoms which
  often co-occur in individuals. Early syndromes
  were anatomically based (e.g. Brocas Aphasia)
• Gerstmanns Syndrome Acalculia, left-right
  disorientation, pure agraphia, finger agnosia
• Can the study of GS provide information about
  the
• functional architecture of cognitive processes?
• Association of deficits on these tasks implies
  they share an underlying process
• Requires a model with a component common to all
  symptoms

10
Single case vs Group studiesThe concept of
syndromes

• Such a cognitive process is not obvious
• It is more likely that these symptoms depend on
  a number of functionally distinct processes which
  are anatomically related. (Danger of
  over-interpreting associations)
• This is one reason why some cognitive
  neuropsychologists favour single-case studies
  over group (syndrome) studies
• Research based on classical syndrome types
  should not be carried out if the goal of the
  research is to address issues concerning the
  structure of cognitive processes Caramazza
  (1984)
• In other words, classical syndromes based on
  anatomical considerations have no role in
  cognitive neuropsychology

11
Single case Vs Group studies

• Caramazzas arguments
• ONLY the single-case approach can provide
  information relevant to our understanding of
  cognitive architecture
• WHY?
• Group studies rest on assumption that cognitive
  processes are homogenous (patients grouped to
  minimise sampling error - noise)
• BUT Brain damage may disrupt cognitive processes
  in a variety of different ways
• Therefore performance differences within a group
  of brain damaged subjects CANNOT be dismissed as
  noise.
• Therefore averaging over a group of patients is
  inappropriate

12
Single case Vs Group studies

• Caramazzas arguments
• Negative consequences of averaging
• Group differences may not reflect performance of
  any patient.

No individual patient is impaired on both tasks
13
Single case Vs Group studies

• One response is to study Functional Syndromes -
  based on IP models of normal function
• E.g. specify criteria on basis of cognitive model
  which will identify a group of patients who are
  homogenous with respect to the proposed cognitive
  impairment
• E.g. deep dyslexia, surface dyslexia,
  phonological dyslexia
• BUT -
• Patients may be homegenous with respect to
  task(s) used to select them, but not with respect
  to experimental task.
• Selection criteria often poorly specified /
  theoretically weak

14
Single case Vs Group studies

• Objections to Caramazzas position
• The same logic may be applied to the study of
  normal behaviour, resulting in the rejection of
  group studies throughout psychology. (Shallice)
• Single cases may simply be the most extreme
  examples of a larger, ignored group. (Robertson
  et al , 1993).
• Single cases make establishing brain-behaviour
  relationships difficult. (Robertson et al ,
  1993).

15
Single case vs Group studies

• Other arguments against a single case only
  position
• single case studies cannot address theories to do
  with relationships between two variables (e.g.
  brain size and intelligence) since correlational
  designs need many subjects
• Single case studies do not permit pure
  replication
• patients can sometimes be atypical from the
  outset (Caramazza's "martian within us" problem),
  e.g. split-brain patients whose brains have
  developed non-conventionally.

16
Single case vs Group studies

• The real debate is very detailed and
  complicated
• E.g. Caramazza Badecker (1991) Clinical
  syndromes are not gods gift to cognitive
  neuropsychology - a reply to a rebuttal to an
  answer to a response to the case against
  syndrome-based research. Brain Cognition, 16
  211-227
• The debate addresses many of the assumptions
  outlined in Lecture 1.
• It has involved philosphers as well as cognitive
  neuropsychologists
• cognitive neuropsychology practice not only must
  steer clear of the Scylla of sole reliance on a
  standard reductionist approach that relies soley
  on group studies, but also would do better to
  avoid the Charybdis of ultra-cognitive
  neuropsychology Shallice, 1988.

17
Functional Neuroimaging

• Many different techniques, eg
• SPECT
• PET
• fMRI
• TMS / rTMS
• EEG
• MEG
• Currently fMRI, TMS and MEG are the most
  popular techniques
• Techniques are increasingly combined

18
Functional Neuroimaging
19
Functional Neuroimaging

• Utility of functional neuroimaging for cognitive
  neuropsychology
• Field is largely split
• PROs
• Can potentially localise function in healthy
  controls
• Has revealed activity in brain areas previously
  thought to be uninvolved (e.g. cerebellum)
• CONs
• Interpretation of imaging data not
  straightforward
• No standard vocabularly for describing results
• Replication of results often poor
• Does nothing for theory development
  (Parkin,2001).

20
Computational Modelling

• Generally uses connectionist (PDP) architectures
  to model aspects of cognition.
• Models are built, and then lesioned in various
  ways (e.g. units knocked out, weights changed)
• Model a success if resulting output resembles
  patterns observed in brain damaged humans.
• Advantages
• Non-invasive
• Forces researchers to specify cognitive theory
  adequately.
• Disadvantages
• Biological plausability unclear

21
Animal studies

• Many (non-language) cognitive functions are also
  studied in animals
• E.g. Memory, Attention, Executive functions.
• Advantages
• Discrete, replicable lesions (permanent or
  temporary)
• Age, environmental effects controlled
• Single cell recording
• Neuropharmacology of cognition
• Disadvantages
• Not very nice for animals
• Unclear how far data can be generalised to humans