. 2014 Nov 12;138(1):80–93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awu313

Table 2.

Correlations of ipsilesional temporal lobe structural measures and memory outcome at follow-up

	Left temporal lobe surgery, ipsilesional			Right temporal lobe surgery, ipsilesional
Memory measure	Volume		Temporal pole integrity	Volume		Temporal pole integrity
Memory measure	Resection	Hippocampus	Temporal pole integrity	Resection	Hippocampus	Temporal pole integrity
Verbal memory
WMS-R Story	−0.39	0.50^*^,^a^,^b	0.13	−0.27	0.47	0.20
D&P Verbal memory	−0.24	0.56^*^,^a^,^b	0.41	−0.37	0.52^*^,^a	0.41
CAVLT Learning	−0.48^*	0.36	0.60**^,^a^,^b	−0.43	0.34	0.12
CAVLT loss after delay	−0.01	0.04	−0.17	−0.49	0.17	0.10
Visual memory
WMS-R Design	−0.41^*	0.34	0.41^*	−0.32	0.21	0.15
D&P Visual memory	−0.18	0.51^*^,^a	0.27	−0.53^*^,^a	0.12	0.10
Semantic memory
IQ-derived semantic memory	−0.34	0.19	0.29	−0.36	0.33	0.24
Category fluency	−0.67**^,^a^,^b	0.57^*^,^a	0.53^*	−0.39	0.46	0.39
BPVS	−0.47^*	0.29	0.50^*^,^a^,^b	−0.28	0.41	0.22

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.

^aSignificant after controlling for FSIQ.

^bSignificant after controlling for language lateralization index. Although findings are frequently significant in the left but not right surgical sample, differences between correlation coefficients are not significant between groups (test for significance between two correlation coefficients, minimum P = 0.09).

Bold correlation values are significant at p < 0.05.