Table 2.
Scores of individual participants in the NET (Neglect Test), in the MMSE (MiniMental State Examination), in the SIDAM (Structured Interview for the Diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer type, Multiinfarct dementia and dementias of other etiology), in the adjusted SIDAM, and in the EC 301 R (German adaptation of the EC 301 assessment battery for brain damaged adults[36])
| NET | MMSE | SIDAM | adj. SIDAM | EC 301 R | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neglect group |
|
|
|
|
|
| R.E. |
135.0/170 |
26/30 |
42/55a |
37/45 |
94/135 |
| L.A. |
70.0/170 |
24/30 |
42/55a |
37/45 |
115/135b |
| R.A. |
64.0/170 |
24/30 |
40/55a |
35/45 |
78/135b |
| K.W. |
86.0/170 |
25/30 |
44/55a |
40/45 |
84/135b |
| P.A. |
115.0/170 |
25/30 |
39/55a |
35/45 |
110/135 |
| F.J. |
100.5/170 |
25/30 |
41/55a |
35/45 |
108/135 |
| Patient control group |
|
|
|
|
|
| C.K. |
170.0/170 |
28/30 |
51/55 |
44/45 |
127/135 |
| S.G. |
169.5/170 |
29/30 |
54/55 |
44/45 |
135/135 |
| G.G. |
169.5/170 |
30/30 |
52/55 |
42/45 |
131/135 |
| J.G. |
169.5/170 |
30/30 |
53/55 |
43/45 |
131/135 |
| F.E. |
169.0/170 |
29/30 |
48/55 |
38/45 |
129/135 |
| P.T. |
165.5/170 |
29/30 |
49/55 |
39/45 |
105/135 |
| Healthy control group |
|
|
|
|
|
| L.I. |
|
28/30 |
48/55 |
39/45 |
134/135 |
| L.J. |
|
30/30 |
53/55 |
43/45 |
135/135 |
| D.M. |
|
29/30 |
52/55 |
42/45 |
135/135 |
| S.P. |
|
28/30 |
51/55 |
42/45 |
125/135 |
| L.G. |
|
28/30 |
52/55 |
42/45 |
133/135 |
| R.W. | 30/30 | 55/55 | 45/45 | 132/135 | |
a Due to neglect symptoms some items of the SIDAM could not be successfully processed (e.g., copying shapes).
b Due to neglect symptoms some items of the EC 301 R could not be successfully processed (e.g., counting dots).
Please note that the neglect group differs significantly from both control groups, while there are no significant differences between the control groups. In particular, the neglect patient group differs from the control patient group regarding NET [t(5) = 3.33; p < .05], MMSE [t(5) = 25.80; p < .001], the SIDAM [t(5) = 18.46; p < .001], adjusted SIDAM [t(5) = 5.38; p < .01] as well as the EC 301 R [t(5) = 5.02; p < .01]. Similarly, the neglect patient group differs from the healthy controls regarding MMSE [t(5) = 16.98; p < .001], the SIDAM [t(5) = 20.78; p < .001], adjusted SIDAM [t(5) = 7.89; p < .001] as well as the EC 301 R[t(5) = 8.79; p < .001]. However, there was no difference between the two control groups as regards MMSE, SIDAM, adj. SIDAM and EC 301 R [all t(5) < 1.38; p > .23].