This study examined the association between cognitive intra-individual variability (IIV), a non-mean-based indicator of underlying neuropathology, and self-reported everyday functioning of 1,086 women with HIV (WWH) and 494 socio-demographically similar women without HIV (WWoH). Objective cognitive performance across seven domains and the self-rated Lawton & Brody scale of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) were assessed among participants of the Women's Interagency HIV Study. Two types of cognitive IIV were calculated by taking the standard deviation across seven cognitive domains to calculate dispersion: 1) intra-individual standard deviation (denoted as sdIIV) and 2) coefficient of variation (denoted as covIIV). To account for the longitudinal nature of the data, generalized linear mixed effect models were conducted to examine associations between the dispersion coefficient of cognitive IIV (predictor (sdIIV and covIV)) and functional outcomes (item level scores). Models were conducted in the overall sample (WWH + WWoH), WWH only, virally suppressed (VS)-WWH, and WWoH. sdIIV and covIIV were not associated with any of the IADL items among WWoH but were for WWH and VS-WWH. In WWH covIIV was predictive of poorer functional performance on twice as many IADL items (10 items-money and bills, buying groceries, getting where you need to go, using the phone, home repairs, dressing, laundry, taking/keeping track of medications, taking care of children, work) than sdIIV (5 items). In this study, cognitive IIV predicts functional impairment and different calculations of IIV produce differential predictive value, especially for WWH.

Prospective memory (PM) involves remembering to execute an intended action in the future, and it is an important skill that predicts everyday functioning in older adults. Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) exhibit difficulties in PM. This study examined subject and caregiver reports of PM ability and their associations with objective PM. Participants included older healthy controls (n = 58), persons with MCI (n = 65), and individuals with AD (n = 18). The Prospective-Retrospective Memory Questionnaire was used to assess self- and caregiver-reports of participants’ PM skills. Objective abilities were measured using tests of “simple” and “complex” PM. Simple PM was defined as remembering to perform a single action in the future. Complex PM was defined as selecting the correct action based on the context. Regression analyses revealed that caregiver-reported PM predicted complex PM only in healthy controls. In contrast, self-reported PM did not predict objective PM in any group. The results showed that self-reports of PM are not good indicators of objective PM. While caregiver reports may be more accurate in relation to PM in healthy older adults, they do not align as well with objective PM for those with cognitive impairment. Overall, this research indicates that objective measures should be used to evaluate this important skill that contributes to everyday functioning.

Overall, metacognition predicts everyday functioning in healthy aging, MCI, and ad. For healthy aging and MCI, the ability to both accurately predict and retrospectively evaluate their own cognition impacts overall everyday functioning. With the increased cognitive impairment of ad, only the ability to retrospectively evaluate performances impacts everyday memory.

Results indicated that PM was predictive of IADLs in healthy older adults. When PM skills are poorer, as in MCI, they are not predictive of IADLs.

Objective:Prospective memory (PM) is the ability to execute a planned action in the future (e.g., remembering to take medication before going to bed). Prior work has suggested that PM failure can account for 50-80% of reported memory problems. Research has also shown that PM becomes increasingly impaired in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) process. To our knowledge, most PM studies use PM accuracy as a measure of PM performance. However, examining the speed of the response as it relates to the AD process remains relatively unexplored. In this study, we examined both PM accuracy and speed in healthy aging, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD.Participants and Methods:Participants included healthy older controls (N=65), persons with MCI (N=70), and persons with AD (N=11). The PM task was embedded within a working memory task as PM demands often occur during an ongoing activity in everyday life. For the working memory component of the PM task, participants were shown a series of words and asked to continuously monitor the words while maintaining the last 3 in memory. All words were displayed within 1 of 6 background patterns. For the PM component, participants were asked to press "1" on the keyboard whenever they were shown a particular background pattern on the screen. PM abilities were measured using the median response time and total accuracy.Results:Age was correlated with PM accuracy. An ANCOVA, controlling for age, and examining the impact of diagnosis on PM accuracy, was significant. Post-hoc tests revealed a trend toward the AD and MCI groups being less accurate than healthy controls. In contrast to accuracy, age was not related to PM speed. An ANOVA examining the impact of diagnosis on PM accuracy found that the AD group responded faster than healthy controls. The MCI group did not show differences in speed from the healthy control and AD groups.Conclusions:Overall, the pattern of results differed in accuracy and speed of PM performance. There was a trend for the MCI and AD groups being less accurate than the controls, with no difference in performance between the MCI and AD groups. However, the AD group responded more quickly than the controls, which may have impacted their accuracy. These findings indicate that PM performance differences among groups can be detected by examining speed and not just accuracy. As speed appears to be an essential aspect involved in PM performance, future research should consider incorporating speed as a measure of PM performance when examining PM differences in populations.

The goal of this special edition Research Topic is to shed light on the progress made in the past decade in the Neuropsychology field and on its future challenges to provide a thorough overview of the state of the art in this area of research. This article collection will inspire, inform, and provide direction and guidance to researchers in the field. This collection comprises eight contributions consisting of three original research articles, three reviews, one brief research report, and one perspective. Overall, the scientific contributions published in this Research Topic exemplify the great complexity hidden behind the challenges that neuropsychology is facing.An initial review offers a critical and historical review of existing measures and resources for neuropsychological assessment of visual/visuo-spatial memory and presents examples of more recent tests that have attempted to overcome the challenges of assessing these important aspects of memory (Diaz-Orueta et al., 2022 the beginning of the pandemic, the intervention of psychologists in managing and containing the 79 infection sequalae has been essential. SARS-CoV-2 affects the central nervous system and cognitive, 80 emotional, and behavioral functions could be severely impaired. Understanding these issues and 81 learning how to deal with them is the challenge ahead.

Objective:To cross-validate RAVLT performance validity cut-offs and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function in a large neuropsychological sample.Method:RAVLT scores and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function were compared in credible (n = 100) and noncredible (n = 353) neuropsychology referrals.Results:Noncredible patients scored lower than credible patients on RAVLT scores and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function. With cut-offs set to >= 90% specificity, highest sensitivities were observed for the discriminant function (cut-off <=.064; 55.8%), recognition total (cut-off <= 9; 53.1%), the recognition combination score (<= 10; 47.7%), and total learning across trials (cut-off <= 31; 45.3%). Individuals with histories of learning difficulties were over-represented in the 10% of credible patients exceeding cut-offs. When these individuals were removed, cut-offs could be tightened while still maintaining at least 90% specificity, and thereby increasing sensitivity (e.g., recognition total cut-off <= 10, 65% sensitivity; RAVLT/RO discriminant function cut-off <=.176, 58% sensitivity). When three of the most sensitive, non-overlapping scores were considered in combination, 17% of credible patients failed >= 1 of the three cut-offs, while 3% failed two, and only 1% failed all three. In contrast, in the noncredible sample, more than two-thirds failed one or more of the three cut-offs, nearly half failed >= 2, and nearly a quarter failed all three.Conclusions:RAVLT PVT cut-offs and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function achieve approximately 50% sensitivity, and approach 65% sensitivity when cut-offs specific to samples without histories of learning problems are employed, confirming that RAVLT cut-offs and the RAVLT/RO discriminant function continue to be valuable techniques in the identification of performance invalidity.

Abstract Objective We evaluated perceived workload (measured by the NASA Task Load Index; NASA-TLX) as related to Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) performances in monolingual and bilingual traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors and healthy comparison participants (HC). Method The sample consisted of 28 TBI survivors (12 monolinguals & 16 bilinguals) and 50 HC (20 monolinguals & 30 bilinguals). SDMT written (SDMT-W) and SDMT oral (SDMT-O) were used to evaluate group differences. Results ANCOVA, controlling for age, revealed that the HC group outperformed the TBI group on SDMT-W, p = .001, and SDMT-O, p = .047. Furthermore, bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on SDMT-W, p = .017. On the NASA-TLX, an interaction emerged on temporal demand rating, p = .023, with TBI bilinguals reporting higher temporal demand on SDMT tasks compared to TBI monolinguals, while the HC monolingual participants reported higher temporal demands ratings compared to HC bilingual participants. Furthermore, monolingual participants showed higher levels of frustration with regard to the SDMT task compared to bilingual participants, p = .029. Conclusion Our data revealed TBI survivors underperformed on both SDMT trials compared to the HC participants. Also, bilingual participants demonstrated better SDMT-W performances compared to monolingual participants. Furthermore, our TBI bilingual sample reported themselves to be more rushed to complete the SDMT compared to monolingual TBI sample, but they were less frustrated. Meanwhile, our HC monolingual sample felt more rushed to complete the SDMT tasks compared to HC bilingual participants, but they were less frustrated. While we observed differences in workload ratings between language groups, it is unclear if language use, and/or other variables are driving these results.

Abstract Objective We examined the effects of attention/processing speed (APS) and executive functioning (EF) in Hispanic and Caucasian traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors and healthy comparison participants (HC). Method The sample consisted of 45 HC (21 Hispanics & 24 Caucasian), 28 acute TBI (ATBI; 10 Hispanics & 18 Caucasians), and 26 chronic TBI (CTBI; 9 Hispanics; 17 Caucasians) participants. ATBI participants were tested 6 months post-injury; CTBI participants were tested 12 months or more post-injury. Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) Oral, SDMT Written, Stroop Word, Stroop Color, and Trail Making Test (TMT) part A were used to create an APS composite (APSC) score. Stroop color-word, TMT part B, Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System verbal fluency composite score, and design fluency composite score were used to create an EF composite (EFC) score. Results ANOVAs were used to evaluate group differences. Main effects were found on APSC, p = .000, with HC and CTBI outperforming the ATBI group. Also, we found the HC group outperformed both TBI groups on EFC, p = .000. Furthermore, we found differences between racial/ethnic groups, with Caucasians outperforming Hispanics on EFC performance, p = .029. No interactions were found. Conclusion Overall, HC demonstrated better EF compared to both TBI groups, but only APS compared to the ATBI group. Also, CTBI survivors demonstrated better APS abilities compared to ATBI survivors. Our findings suggest improvement in APS during the later stages of TBI recovery. Finally, Caucasians demonstrated better EF compared to Hispanics.

McCaul et al. (2018) recently revised the Dot Counting Test (DCT) cut-off score from ≥17 to 13.80; we evaluated the new cut-off in monolingual and bilingual traumatic brain injury survivors (TBIS) and healthy comparison participants (HCP). The sample consisted of 43 acute TBI [ATBI; 23 English monolinguals (EM); 11 English first language bilinguals (EFLB); and 9 English second language bilinguals (ESLB)]; 30 chronic TBI (CTBI; 13 EM; 9 EFLB; 8 ESLB), and 56 HCP (23 EM; 11 EFLB; 22 ESLB). An ANCOVA, controlling for age and education, revealed an interaction where ATBI-EFLB had higher E-scores than the other groups and the CTBI-EFLB had lower E-scores than the other groups. Both the conventional and proposed new cut-off (PNC) scores had different failure rates in ATBI (conventional cut-off: 9%; PNC: 28%), CTBI (conventional cut-off: 10%; PNC: 20%), and HCP (conventional cut-off: 11%; PNC: 13%). For language groups, EM (conventional cut-off: 14%; PNC: 22%), EFLB (conventional cut-off: 10%; PNC: 26%), and ESLB (conventional cut-off: 5%; PNC: 10%) demonstrated different failure rates across cut-off scores. Group differences were found with McCaul et al. (2018) cut-off, but not the conventional cut-off score. Also, chi-squared analysis revealed ATBI EFLB and EM had greater failure rates than ATBI ESLB. Unfortunately, the new DCT cut-off score resulted in greater failure rates in TBIS. Furthermore, ATBI EM and EFLB were impacted more by the new cut offs than ATBI ESLB who learned English later in life, although the reason for this finding is unclear and requires additional study.

Abstract Objective Research shows traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors underperform compared to healthy comparison participants (HC) on verbal fluency tasks. Verbal fluency is typically comprised of two tasks: letter fluency and semantic fluency. During verbal fluency trials, participants often cluster responses and switch between clusters, which can serve as measures of executive control and organization. Also, research shows that Anglo-Americans (AA) outperformed ethnic minorities on various aspects of cognitive functioning. We examined the relationship between TBI and ethnic diversity on letter fluency, semantic fluency, switching, and clustering. Method The sample included 45 HC adults (21 Hispanics; 24 AA), 33 acute TBI adults (ATBI; 11 Hispanics; 22 AA), and 26 chronic TBI adults (CTBI; 9 Hispanics; 17 AA). Results The groups were well matched, with the exception of gender. ANCOVAs, controlling for gender, revealed HC outperformed ATBI participants on letter fluency, p = .007, ηp2 = .10, letter switching, p = .006, ηp2 = .10, and semantic switching, p = .018, ηp2 = .08. We also found HC outperformed both TBI groups in sematic fluency performances, p = .000, ηp2 = .15. Next, we found Hispanics outperformed AA on letter clustering, p = .003, ηp2 = .09 and semantic clustering, p = .010, ηp2 = .07. Finally, an interaction emerged in letter clustering, p = .044, ηp2 = .06, with the Hispanic ATBI outperforming the AA ATBI group. Conclusion The HC group outperformed both TBI groups only on semantic fluency, but they outperformed the ATBI survivors on letter fluency, letter switching, and semantic switching. Hispanics outperformed AA on letter clustering and semantic clustering, suggesting the use of clustering over switching strategies to provide verbal fluency responses in this group.

Abstract Objective We evaluated symptoms of anxiety (via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS, HADS-A) on Stroop Color Word Test (SCWT) performances in traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors, as compared to healthy comparison participants (HC). Method The sample consisted of 40 acute TBI survivors [ATBI; 30 normal symptoms of anxiety (NSA); 10 abnormal symptoms of anxiety (ASA)], 30 chronic TBI survivors (CTBI; 16 NSA; 14 ASA), and 50 HC’s (28 NSA; 22 ASA). All participants passed performance validity testing. The SCWT included the word (SCWT-W), color (SCWT-C), and color-word (SCWT-CW) conditions. A series of ANOVAs were used to evaluate SCWT performances. Results ANOVA revealed a main effect group on the SCWT-C, p = .011, and SCWT-CW, p = .018, with HC’s outperforming the ATBI group. Furthermore, HC outperformed both TBI groups on the SCWT-W, p = .004. We also found that the ASA outperformed the NSA group on the SCWT-W, p = .036. No interactions emerged between group and anxiety. Conclusion The HC group outperformed both TBI groups on the SCWT-W, but only the ATBI group on SCWT-C and SCWT-CW. Furthermore, we found that there were only differences between the anxiety groups on the SCWT-W. Our findings highlight that anxiety impacts HC and TBI groups differently on the SCWT.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors often exhibit problems with executive function (EF). Language use can also impact EF test performances. We examined the effects of TBI and bilingualism/monolingualism on several EF tests. The sample (N = 94) consisted of 37 healthy controls (19 bilingual; 18 monolingual), 30 acute TBI participants (10 bilingual; 20 monolingual), and 27 chronic TBI participants (16 bilingual; 11 monolingual). Acute TBI participants were tested 6 months post-injury and chronic TBI participants were tested 12 months or more post-injury. Stroop Color-Word (SCW), Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Letter Fluency (DKEFS-LF), Trail Making Test part B (TMT-B) and a EF global composite (EF-GC) were used to assess EF. All participants passed performance validity testing. 3X2 ANOVAs were conducted to determine the effect of TBI and bilingualism/monolingualism on EF performances. Main effects were found between groups (control and TBI groups) on SCW, p = .046, ηp² = .07, TMT-B, p = .042, ηp² = .07, and EF-GC, p = .005, ηp² = .13; the 6-month TBI group performed worse than controls on TMT-B and EF-GC. Main effects were found for bilingualism/ monolingualism on SCW, p = .012, ηp² = .07, and TMT-B, p = .034, ηp² = .05; monolingual participants performed better than bilingual participants. No significant interactions between TBI and language were found. The TBI group underperformed on SCW, TMT-B, and EF-GC compared to controls; relative to monolinguals, bilinguals underperformed on the SCW and TMT-B only. In conclusion, our findings seem to suggest that monolinguals have better cognitive flexibility compared to bilinguals that result in better EF performances.

Abstract Objective Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with a number of cognitive deficits. Language factors also impact neurocognitive performance. We examined the effects of TBI and bilingualism/monolingualism on a test of attention and executive functioning (Trail Making Test; TMT). Method The sample (N = 96) consisted of 36 healthy controls (19 bilingual; 17 monolingual), 34 acute TBI participants (12 bilingual; 21 monolingual), and 27 chronic TBI participants (16 bilingual; 11 monolingual). Acute TBI participants were tested 6 months post-injury and chronic TBI participants were tested 12 months or more post-injury. 3X2 ANOVAs were conducted to determine the effect of TBI and bilingualism/monolingualism on TMT part A and B. Results Main effects were found between groups (i.e., control and TBI groups) on TMT A, p < .001, ηp² = .17 and TMT B, p < .05, ηp² = .09. Pairwise comparisons revealed a difference only between the control group and the 6-month TBI group, with the latter performing worse. Main effects were found for bilingualism/monolingualism on TMT A, p < .05, ηp² = .04 and TMT B, p < .05, ηp² = .05; monolingual participants performed better than bilingual participants. No interactions emerged. Conclusion Relative to monolinguals, bilingual participants demonstrated worse attention and executive functioning performances 6 months post-TBI; however, 12 months post-TBI, the difference was negligible.

Abstract Objective The Boston Naming Test (BNT) is a lexical-retrieval task. It has been documented that those with a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have reduced performance on the BNT. Bilingualism is also known to impact BNT performances. We examined the relationship of TBI and bilingualism/monolingualism on BNT performances. Method The sample (N = 95) consisted of 36 healthy controls (19 bilingual; 17 monolingual), 32 acute TBI participants (12 bilingual; 20 monolingual), and 27 chronic TBI participants (16 bilingual; 11 monolingual). Acute TBI participants were tested 6 months post-injury and chronic TBI participants were tested 12 months or more post-injury. All participants passed performance validity testing. A 3X2 ANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of TBI and bilingualism/monolingualism on BNT performance. Results A main effect was found for group (i.e., control, 6 month TBI, and 12 month TBI), p < .001, ηp² = .21. Pairwise comparisons revealed that acute TBI participants performed worse than the control and chronic TBI groups. A main effect for bilingualism/ monolingualism was found, p < .001, ηp² = .14; monolinguals performed better on the BNT. No interactions were found between TBI and bilingualism/monolingualism. Conclusions BNT performance improves overtime in TBI and the pattern of improvement post-TBI is not statistically different between bilingual/monolingual groups. Relative to monolinguals, bilingual participants demonstrated worse BNT performance.

Abstract Objective Traumatic brain injury (TBI) affects neurocognition. Speaking multiple languages can also influence cognitive test performances. We examined the relationship between TBI and monolingualism/bilingualism on a task of attention and response inhibition (Stroop Color Word Test; SCWT). Method The sample (N = 96) consisted of 37 healthy controls (19 bilingual; 18 monolingual), 32 acute TBI participants (12 bilingual; 20 monolingual), and 27 chronic TBI participants (16 bilingual; 11 monolingual). Acute TBI participants were tested 6 months post-injury and chronic TBI participants were tested 12 months or more post-injury. The SCWT included the word (SCWT-W), color (SCWT-C), and color-word interference (SCWT-I) conditions. All participants passed performance validity testing. 3X2 ANOVAs were conducted to examine the relationship between TBI and monolingualism/bilingualism on SCWT performances. Results Group effects (control and TBI groups) were found for all Stroop measures. We found main effects of TBI on SCWT-W, p = .013, ηp² = .09, SCWT-C, p = .001, ηp² = .14, and SCWT-I, p = .022, ηp² = .08, with the controls outperforming acute TBI survivors on SCWT-I, chronic TBI survivors on SCWT-W, and both TBI groups on SCWT-C. We also observed main effects of language for SCWT-C, p = .012, ηp² = .07, and SCWT-I, p = .003, ηp² = .09, with the monolinguals outperforming bilinguals on SCWT-C and SCWT-I. However, no significant interactions between TBI and language were found. Conclusion As expected, the control group outperformed TBI survivors on the SCWT. Monolinguals outperformed bilinguals on all Stroop measures except SCWT-W condition. Our findings seem to suggest that monolingual speakers may have better attention and response inhibition abilities that resulted in better SCWT performance.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) impacts neurocognitive function. Language is also known to influence test performances. We examined the relationship between TBI and monolingualism/bilingualism on verbal and design fluency tests. The sample (N = 74) consisted of 33 healthy controls (18 bilingual; 15 monolingual), 15 acute TBI participants (6 bilingual; 9 monolingual), and 26 chronic TBI participants (15 bilingual; 11 monolingual). Acute TBI participants were tested 6 months post-injury and chronic TBI participants were tested 12 months or more post-injury. The Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Letter Fluency (DKEFS-LF), Category Fluency (DKEFS-CF), Category Switching Fluency (DKEFS-CSF), and global verbal fluency composite (DKEFS-GVF) scores assessed verbal fluency; DKEFS fill-dots (DKEFS-FD), empty dots (DFEFS-ED), dot switching (DKEFS-DS), and global design fluency composite (DKEFS-GDF) scores assessed design fluency; and global verbal and non-verbal fluency composite (DKEFS-GF) assessed overall fluency. 3X2 ANOVAs were conducted to evaluate the effect of monolingualism/bilingualism on fluency performance in TBI and controls. The groups (control and TBI groups) differed for DKEFS-LF, p = .048, ηp² = .09, DKEFS-CF, p = .000, ηp² = .21, DKEFS-GVF, p = .004, ηp² = .15, DKEFS-ED, p = .008, ηp² = .13, DKEFS-GF, p = .001, ηp² = .20, with controls outperforming TBI groups on the DKEFS-CF, DKEFS-GVF, and DKEFS-GF. Furthermore, controls outperformed acute TBI participants on the DKEFS-LF and DKEFS-ED. Main effects were found for bilingualism/monolingualism on DKEFS-CF, p = .035, ηp² = .06, with bilinguals outperforming monolinguals. No interactions were found. The TBI group had poor verbal and design fluency in contrast controls. Unexpectedly, bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on a task of verbal category fluency. Revealing that in the present study bilinguals have better semantic verbal fluency abilities.