No abstract

Objective To identify regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) differences between individuals who self-reported either low or high symptoms of somatic anxiety. Method Individuals who reported low levels of somatic anxiety (0-20th percentile;n = 8962,Mage = 39.2,39.2% female,62.6% Caucasian) and individuals who reported high levels of somatic anxiety (80-100th percentile;n = 6427,Mage = 40.9,39.0% female,69.5% Caucasian) were selected from a deidentified adult clinical outpatient database. Those with comorbid diagnoses were included. Significant differences (alpha = 0.001) were found for age [t(15387) = 6.3], and race [χ2(15) = 119.4] between groups and therefore were controlled. Results Significant rCBF differences were noted bilaterally in the frontal lobe [left: F(1,15,384) = 16.4; right: F(1,15,384) = 13.2] and motor-sensory strip [left: F(1,15,384) = 4.3; right: F(1,15,384) = 5.1]. Group means comparisons indicated higher perfusion in the frontal lobe of the high levels of somatic anxiety group. Lower perfusion was found in the motor sensory strip of the high levels of somatic anxiety group. No significant differences were found bilaterally in the cerebellum, limbic system, basal ganglia, vermis, or occipital, parietal, or temporal lobes. Conclusion Results indicated that individuals who report higher levels of somatic anxiety have higher perfusion in the frontal lobes and lower perfusion motor-sensory strip. Previous literature SPECT studies have found a link between individuals with panic disorder and increased activity in the right medial and superior frontal lobes. No research was found for anxiety in the motor-sensory strip. Limitations included the reliance on self-report measures of anxiety in place of clinical measures and the potential mediating effect of medication on somatic symptoms. Future research should examine perfusion in the motor-sensory strip, use clinical measures of anxiety, and control for mediation use.

Objective Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many services attempted to quickly transition to a remote format. A need to incorporate and evaluate a remote delivery of neuropsychological measures arose. TestMyBrain (TMB) from the Many Brains Project has been utilizing teleneuropsychology in research since 2017. Method Volunteer research participants (N = 176, Mage = 29, Medu = 15 years, 64.7% white, 54.2% female, 83.2% right-handed) were administered TMB Simple Reaction Time and Choice Reaction Time subtest as part of a larger battery via zoom. Participants were able to choose between completing these measures using a keyboard, mouse, or a touch screen. There were no significant differences among demographic variables across the different completion methods. Results An ANCOVA indicated there was not a significant difference in simple reaction time across the different response F(2,168) = 0.482, p = 0.618, ηp2 = 0.006. There was however a significant difference in choice reaction time across the different response methods F(2,168) = 11.486, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.120. Conclusion Results suggest different response methods maybe suitable for simpler tasks, yet there lacks consistency in response methods for more complex tasks. This medium effect size may have occurred as a result of the lack of sensitivity for devices to detect taps on different portions of the screen as effectively as various keys on a keyboard. Administrators must be aware of the limitations response methods may introduce into results. Limitation to this analysis include limited samples and not controlling for other factors that may potentially influence reaction time such as internet connection. Future research should focus on creating a standardized method for teleneuropsychology administration.

Objective To see how strongly performance on a computerized visual digit span task correlates with non-computerized digit span subtests. Method The data were chosen from a de-identified database. Undiagnosed adult volunteers (n = 105) took the WAIS-IV Digit Span and TMB Digit Span subtests. Demographic characteristics were as follows: Age (M = 28.5, SD = 11.2), education (M = 16.2, SD = 1.9), gender (60% Female), race (69.8% White). A Pearson correlation was run on the TMB and WAIS-IV longest digit span forward (ldsf) and longest digit span backward (ldsb) raw scores of the same individuals. Results Results suggest a moderate correlation between WAIS-IV ldsf (M = 7.14, SD = 1.31) and TMB (M = 6.90, SD = 1.29) ldsf raw scores, r = 0.45, p > 0.01. Moreover, results indicated a moderate correlation between WAIS-IV ldsb (M = 7.69, SD = 1.43) and TMB (M = 5.66, SD = 1.81) ldsb raw scores, r = 0.38, p > 0.01. 73.1% of participants had the same or were within one digit on ldsf scores on both assessments, while 93% were within two digits. 63.8% of participants had the same ldsb scores on both assessments, while 81.9% were within two digits. Conclusion Clinicians must note the risk of assuming computerized tests measure the same cognitive functions as standardized paper-and-pencil tests. These results underscore this point. Future studies should continue to assess how well in-person tests align with other computerized tests purporting to measure the same cognitive abilities by examining other variables (i.e., auditory vs. visual, controlled vs. non-controlled environment).

Objective Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many services attempted to quickly transition to a remote format. A need to validate remote delivery of neuropsychological measures arose. TestMyBrain (TMB) from the Many Brains Project has been utilizing teleneuropsychology in research since 2017. Method Volunteer research participants (N = 147, Mage = 29, Medu = 15 years, 64.7% white, 54.2% female, 83.2% right-handed, 52.1% utilized Mac Operating System) were administered TMB Verbal Paired Associates(TMBVPA) and WMS-IV Verbal Paired Associates I(VPAI) as part of a larger battery of test via zoom. The WMS-IV assessments adhered to standardization as much as possible such as limiting potential distractions. Results A correlation revealed a positive association between TMBVPA and VPAI r(150) = 0.312, p = < 0.001. A linear regression revealed that performance on the TMBVPA positively predicted performance on the VPAI F(3, 144) = 9.344, p < 0.001 accounting for 16.6% of the variability over and above known demographic variables. The rate of agreeance showed that 23.7% of TMBVPA scores were within a one score difference of the VPAI and 37.4% were within two scores. Conclusions The results suggest that the two remote administration formats may not be as congruent as originally thought. With 62.6% of scores outside of a two-point range and the low rate of agreement this suggests little real-world application of the TMBVPA. Although telepsychology has come a long way, remote neuropsychological measures may still not be a reality any time soon. Future research should compare both remote administration versions to a standardized in person administration as well as consider other factors that can influence administration formats.