Skip to main content
. 2015 Oct 1;36(4):808–818. doi: 10.1177/0271678X15608390

Table 3.

Partial correlation coefficient of neuropsychological data and network parameters in patients (n = 27).

Degree C Eloc BC L Eglob Q σ A
MMSE .46a .46a .49a –.12 –.51a .57b –.59b,c –.53a –.17
SPM_T .14 .22 .27 –.22 –.32 .25 –.29 –.23 –.33
CGWRT .57b .62b .61b –.27 –.56b .63b –.59b –.44a –.24
California Verbal Learning Test-II
Imm. Recall .36 .46a .52a –.15 –.54a,c .53a –.55a –.52a –.20
LDF Recall .27 .36 .44a –.25 –.51a,c .45a –.49a –.52a –.23
Recogn. Discr .23 .25 .33 –.15 –.42 .41 –.47a,c –.40 –.24
Brief Visual Memory Test-Revised
Imm. Recall .38 .31 .34 –.16 –.47a .50a –.62b,c –.50a –.31
Delay Recall .29 .22 .23 –.41 –.37 .34 –.46a –.19 –.35
Recogn. Discr .51a .50a .53a –.24 –.58b .63b,c –.58b –.49a –.41
B3D_Total .42 .36 .37 –.33 –.49a .50a –.51a,c –.37 –.43
Purdue Pegboard Test
Dominant –.01 .06 .12 –.02 –.15 .16 –.24 –.29 .05
Non–dominant .29 .30 .32 –.20 –.39 .48 –.48a –.33 –.15
Category Fluency .34 .40 .44a –.24 –.46a .46a –.36 –.42 –.27
Design Fluency Test
Filled Dot .16 .21 .27 .01 –.30 .30 –.33 –.39 –.03
Empty Dot .33 .39 .41 –.27 –.48a .44a –.49a –.39 –.21
Switch .32 .46a .53a –.29 –.58a,b .53a –.42 –.38 –.31
a

p < 0.05 after multiple linear regression analysis.

b

p < 0.01 after multiple linear regression analysis.

c

p < 0.05 after multiple linear regression analysis.

MMSE: Mini Mental Status Examination; SPM_T: Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices; CGWRT: Chinese Graded Word Reading Test; Imm. Recall: Immediate Recall; LDF: Long Delay Free Recall; Recogn. Discr: Recognition Discriminability; Imm. Recall: Immediate; Recogn. Discr: Recognition Discriminability; B3D: Benton 3-Dimensional Construction Praxis Test; PPT: Purdue Pegboard Test; C: clustering coefficient; Eloc: local efficiency; BC: Betweenness centrality; L: characteristic path length; Eglob: global efficiency; Q: modularity; σ: small-worldness; A: assortativity. (All network parameters were analyzed at r-threshold: 0.54.)