Test of parietal lobe function and associated methods

• US 20040058306A1
• Filed: 09/17/2002
• Published: 03/25/2004
• Est. Priority Date: 09/17/2002
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Harcourt Assessment Incorporated (Pearson plc)
• Original Assignee: Harcourt Assessment Incorporated (Pearson plc)
• Inventors: Minthon, Lennart, Warkentin, Siegbert, Wiig, Elisabeth, Nielsen, Niels Peter
• Granted Patent: US 6,884,078 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 434/362
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 5/16 Devices for psychotechnics using teaching or educational appliances G09B1/00 - G09B7/00; Testing reaction times ; Devices for evaluating the psychological state
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 5/168 Evaluating attention deficit, hyperactivity
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 5/4088 Diagnosing of monitoring cognitive diseases, e.g. Alzheimer, prion diseases or dementia
• CPC Class Codes: G09B 7/00 Electrically-operated teaching apparatus or devices working with questions and answers mechanically operated G09B3/00; computing arrangements G06F

Abstract

A test, system, and method for testing parietal lobe function in a subject, wherein the method includes displaying to a subject a first ordered array of objects having a variety of colors, which the subject is prompted to name. The named object colors are compared with the correct object colors, and a count is maintained of errors in the named object colors and an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object colors, these numbers compared with predetermined data for determining a possible parietal lobe function deficiency. An analogous test is performed of shape-naming, and, in a preferred embodiment, of color and shape naming. A practice test administration is also described, as well as a software-driven administration and scoring of the test.

Claims

1. A method for testing parietal lobe function in a subject, the method comprising the steps of:

displaying to a subject a first ordered array of objects having a variety of colors, each object having a unitary color;

prompting the subject to name the object colors sequentially in order;

comparing the named object colors with the correct object colors;

maintaining a count of errors in the named object colors;

timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object colors;

comparing the color-naming error count and interval with a predetermined color-naming error count and interval, a color-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined color-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency;

displaying to the subject a second ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes;

prompting the subject to name the object shapes sequentially in order;

comparing the named object shapes with the correct object shapes;

maintaining a count of errors in the named object shapes;

timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object shapes; and

comparing the shape-naming error count and interval with a predetermined shape-naming error count and interval, a shape-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined shape-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency.

2. The method recited in claim 1, wherein the objects in the first ordered array all have a substantially analogous shape.

3. The method recited in claim 1, wherein the objects in the first ordered array all comprise squares.

4. The method recited in claim 1, wherein the objects in the second ordered array all have a substantially analogous color.

5. The method recited in claim 1, further comprising the steps of:

displaying to the subject a third ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes and a variety of colors;

prompting the subject to name the object colors and shapes sequentially in order;

comparing the named object colors and shapes with the correct object colors and shapes;

maintaining a count of errors in the named object colors and shapes;

timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object colors and shapes; and

comparing the color- and shape-naming error count and interval with a predetermined color- and shape-naming error count and interval, a color- and shape-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined color- and shape-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency.

6. The method recited in claim 5, further comprising the steps of:

displaying to the subject a fourth ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes and a variety of colors;

prompting the subject to name the object colors and shapes of the fourth ordered array sequentially in order;

comparing the named object colors and shapes of the fourth ordered array with the correct object colors and shapes;

maintaining a count of errors in the named object colors and shapes of the fourth ordered array;

timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object colors and shapes of the fourth ordered array; and

comparing the color- and shape-naming error count and interval of the fourth ordered array with a predetermined color- and shape-naming error count and interval, a color- and shape-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined color- and shape-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency.

7. The method recited in claim 6, further comprising the step of performing a two-dimensional comparison of subject data for determining a possible parietal lobe deficiency, the subject data comprising at least one of color- and shape-naming error count for the third ordered array versus color- and shape-naming error count for the fourth ordered array and color- and shape-naming interval for the third ordered array versus color- and shape-naming interval for the fourth ordered array.

8. The method recited in claim 1, wherein, if a possible parietal lobe function deficiency is indicated by at least one of the color-naming error count and interval and the shape-naming error count and interval comparing steps, recommending additional assessment of the subject.

9. The method recited in claim 1, further comprising the step of performing a two-dimensional comparison of subject data for determining a possible parietal lobe deficiency, the subject data comprising at least one of color-naming error count versus shape-naming error count and color-naming interval versus shape-naming interval.

10. A parietal lobe function test comprising:

means for displaying to a subject a first ordered array of objects having a variety of colors, each object having a unitary color;

means for maintaining a count of errors in the named object colors;

a timer for timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object colors;

a set of predetermined color-naming error count and interval data against which to compare the color-naming error count, a color-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined color-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency;

means for displaying to the subject a second ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes;

means for maintaining a count of errors in the named object shapes;

a timer for timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object shapes; and

a set of predetermined shape-naming error count and interval data against which to compare the shape-naming error count and interval, a shape-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined shape-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency.

11. The test recited in claim 10, wherein the objects in the first ordered array all have a substantially analogous shape.

12. The test recited in claim 10, wherein the objects in the first ordered array all comprise squares.

13. The test recited in claim 10, wherein the objects in the second ordered array all have a substantially analogous color.

14. The test recited in claim 10, wherein the first and the second ordered array displaying means each comprise a card.

15. The test recited in claim 10, further comprising:

means for displaying to the subject a third ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes and a variety of colors;

means for maintaining a count of errors in the named object colors and shapes;

a timer for timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object colors and shapes; and

a set of predetermined color- and shape-naming error count and interval data against which to compare the color- and shape-naming error count and interval, a color- and shape-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined color- and shape-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency.

16. The test recited in claim 10, further comprising means for displaying to the subject a practice ordered array of objects having a variety of colors.

17. The test recited in claim 10, further comprising means for displaying to the subject a practice ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes.

18. A parietal lobe function test delivery and analysis system comprising:

a processor;

a timing device, a display device, and an input device, all in signal communication with the processor;

a database accessible by the processor containing a set of predetermined standard data;

software means resident on the processor adapted to;

effect a display to a subject on the display device a first ordered array of objects having a variety of colors, each object having a unitary color;

receive from an examiner via the input device a count of errors in the named object colors;

access the timer for timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object colors;

for a set

access the database for a set of predetermined color-naming error count and interval data;

making a first comparison of the color-naming error count and interval with the predetermined color-naming error count and interval data, a color-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined color-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency;

effect a display to the subject on the display device a second ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes;

receive from the examiner via the input device a count of errors in the named object shapes;

access the timer for timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object shapes;

access the database for a set of predetermined shape-naming error count and interval data;

making a second comparison of the shape-naming error count and interval against the predetermined shape-naming error count and interval data, a shape-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined shape-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency; and

output to the examiner a result of the first and the second comparison.

19. The system recited in claim 18, wherein the objects in the first ordered array all have a substantially analogous color.

20. The system recited in claim 18, wherein the objects in the first ordered array all comprise squares.

21. The system recited in claim 18, wherein the objects in the second ordered array all have a substantially analogous shape.

22. The system recited in claim 18, wherein the display comprises a video monitor.

23. The system recited in claim 18, wherein the software is further adapted to:

effect a display to the subject on the display device a third ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes and a variety of colors;

receive from the examiner via the input device a count of errors in the named object colors and shapes;

access the timer for timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object colors and shapes;

access the database for a set of predetermined color- and shape-naming error count and interval data;

making a third comparison of the color- and shape-naming error count and interval with the predetermined color- and shape-naming error count and interval, a color- and shape-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined color- and shape-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency; and

output to the examiner a result of the third comparison.

24. The system recited in claim 18, wherein the software is further adapted to effect a display on the display device to the subject a practice ordered array of objects having a variety of colors, for permitting the subject to practice taking a second portion of the test.

25. The system recited in claim 18, wherein the software is further adapted to effect a display on the display device to the subject a practice ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes, for permitting the subject to practice taking a second portion of the test.

26. An automated parietal lobe function test delivery and analysis system comprising:

a processor;

a timing device, a display device, and an input device, all in signal communication with the processor;

a database accessible by the processor containing a set of predetermined standard data;

software means resident on the processor adapted to;

effect a display to a subject on the display device a first ordered array of objects having a variety of colors, each object having a unitary color;

receive from an examiner via the input device a count of errors in the named object colors;

access the timer for timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object colors;

for a set

access the database for a set of predetermined color-naming error count and interval data;

making a first comparison of the color-naming error count and interval with the predetermined color-naming error count and interval data, a color-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined color-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency;

effect a display to the subject on the display device a second ordered array of objects having a variety of shapes;

receive from the examiner via the input device a count of errors in the named object shapes;

access the timer for timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the object shapes;

access the database for a set of predetermined shape-naming error count and interval data;

making a second comparison of the shape-naming error count and interval against the predetermined shape-naming error count and interval data, a shape-naming error count and interval greater than the predetermined shape-naming error count and interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency; and

output to the examiner a result of the first and the second comparison.

27. The system recited in claim 26, wherein:

the processor and the database are located at a central site, and the software means is adapted to direct the display-effecting and result-outputting steps at a subject site remote from the central site over a communications network.

28. A method for testing parietal lobe function in a subject, the method comprising the steps of:

displaying to a subject a first ordered array of objects, each object having a feature within a first unitary dimension;

prompting the subject to name the feature of each object of the first array sequentially in order;

displaying to the subject a second ordered array of objects, each object having a feature within a second unitary dimension distinct from the first unitary dimension;

prompting the subject to name the feature of each object of the second array sequentially in order;

displaying to the subject a third ordered array of objects, each object having two features, one feature within each of the first and the second unitary dimension;

prompting the subject to name the features of each object of the third array sequentially in order;

timing an interval taken by the subject to complete naming the third array object features; and

comparing the interval with a predetermined interval, an interval greater than the predetermined interval indicative of a possible parietal lobe function deficiency.

29. The method recited in claim 28, wherein:

the displaying and prompting steps are performed at a subject site remote from a central site over a communications network; and

the comparing step is performed at the central site.

30. The method recited in claim 29, further comprising the step of storing interval and demographic data on the subject at the central site.