Comparison between two scoring systems of the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure in left and right temporal lobe epileptic patients

Abstract

The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF) is probably one of the most popular measurement instruments of visuoconstructional abilities and nonverbal memory. It is frequently part of neuropsychological test protocols in epilepsy surgery centers. In this study we compared the traditional scoring system of the ROCF developed by Taylor (1998) with a qualitative system that assesses spatial-relational errors devised by Loring et al. [Loring, D. W., Lee, G. P., & Meador, K. J. (1988). Revising the Rey-Osterrieth: Rating right hemisphere recall. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 3, 239-247] in a sample of left and right temporal lobe epilepsy patients undergoing pre-surgical evaluation. We investigated whether the relational-spatial scoring system would be more sensitive to right-sided memory deficits than the traditional Taylor version. There was no difference in the copy phase of the ROCF between the clinical and control groups. There was a significant difference between the control and the clinical groups when the 30-min delayed recall drawings were scored with the Taylor system. However, this system failed to find differences between left and right temporal lobe epileptic patients. On the other hand, comparisons with the qualitative scoring criteria used by Loring et al. [Loring, D. W., Lee, G. P., & Meador, K. J. (1988). Revising the Rey-Osterrieth: Rating right hemisphere recall. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 3, 239-247] revealed that right temporal lobe patients made more spatial-relational errors than patients with left-sided foci. Frequency distribution of these scores for all the three groups and sensitivity and specificity to correctly classify right temporal lobe patients are presented. This investigation demonstrated that applying qualitative, material-specific scoring criteria improves temporal lobe epilepsy presurgical protocols.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.