SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Neuropsychological battery Patients tested at the Rotman Research Institute were administered a neuropsychological battery assessing general cognitive functioning (Mini-Mental State Examination, MMSE), hemispatial neglect (Bell cancellation test; Gauthier et al., 1989; Clock drawing task; Van der Horst, 1934), vocabulary (Shipley, 1946), executive function [Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; WCST; Trail Making Test (TMT); and verbal fluency; see Spreen and Strauss, 1998], and verbal learning and memory (HVLT Revised; Benedict et al., 1998). Working memory was assessed, using a self-ordered pointing task (see Davidson et al., 2008). The patient tested in Italy underwent a slightly different set of standardized neuropsychological tests, due to differences in standard neuropsychological assessment across different laboratories. This included measures of general cognitive functioning (MMSE), hemispatial neglect (Bell cancellation test, Clock drawing task), and executive function (WCST and verbal fluency; see Spinnler and Tognoni, 1987 for Italian normative data). Verbal learning and memory was assessed through the Buschke Fuld test (Buschke and Fuld, 1974), a selective-reminding list learning task involving free recall (see Spinnler and Tognoni, 1987 for Italian normative data). We used the Long-Term Retrieval score (CLRT; i.e., the number of words consistently recalled until the last trial without need for further reminding) and the Delayed Recall score (DR; i.e., the number of words correctly recalled after a 10-minute delay). 1
SUPPLEMENTARY RESULTS, Neuropsychological study Top-Down AtoM Relative change in performance in the Intact (validly cued) compared to the NewOld (non-cued) condition. For each participant, an index of relative change in recognition accuracy in the Intact compared to the NewOld condition was computed as (Accuracy Intact - Accuracy NewOld )/Accuracy NewOld. Analogously, an index of relative change in RTs in the Intact compared to the NewOld condition was computed as (RT Intact RT NewOld )/RT NewOld. The index of relative change in recognition accuracy was comparable across groups (p > 0.30 in all cases). However, in the Intact compared to the NewOld condition RTs decreased less in DPC patients than in controls (Mann-Whitney Z = -2.54; p < 0.05). In contrast, VPC patients benefited from memory cueing to the same extent as did normal controls, both in terms of accuracy and RTs (p > 0.43 in all cases). Bottom-up AtoM Relative change in performance the Recombined (invalidly cued) compared to the NewOld (noncued) and the Intact (validly cued) condition. For each participant, an index of relative change in hit rates in the Recombined condition compared to the NewOld condition was computed as (Accuracy Recombined Accuracy NewOld )/Accuracy NewOld, and an index of relative change in RTs in the Recombined compared to the NewOld condition was computed as (RTs Recombined RTs NewOld )/RTs NewOld. Analogously, an index of relative change in hit rates in the Recombined condition compared to the Intact condition was computed as (Accuracy Recombined Accuracy Intact )/Accuracy Intact, and an 1
index of relative change in RTs in the Recombined compared to the Intact condition was computed as (RTs Recombined RTs Intact )/RTs Intact. The index of relative change in hit rates in the Recombined compared to the NewOld and to the Intact condition were comparable across groups (p > 0.12 in all cases). However, RTs increased more in the Recombined condition in left VPC patients than in controls compared to the NewOld condition (left VPC patients: M = 0.39; normal controls: M = 0.00; Mann-Whitney Z < -2.03; p < 0.05), and, although only marginally, to the Intact condition (left VPC patients: M = 0.43; normal controls: M = 0.15; p = 0.18), whereas right VPC patients were not different from the controls (p > 0.79 in both cases). In DPC patients, the relative change in RTs in the Recombined compared to the NewOld condition was comparable to the controls (p = 0.61). However, in these patients, RTs increased significantly less in the Recombined compared to the Intact condition than in VPC patients (Mann-Whitney Z < -2.30; p < 0.05) and normal controls (Mann-Whitney Z < -2.37; p < 0.05). In these patients, DPC lesions arguably prevented the development of mnemonic expectations, and, in turn, the benefit from valid memory cueing in the Intact condition, thus accounting for the absence of reorienting costs after invalid cueing (Recombined condition). 2
References Benedict RHB, Schretlen D, Groninger L, Brandt J (1998) Hopkins verbal learning test revised: normative data and analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability. Clin Neuropsychol 12:43 55. Gauthier L, Dehaut F, Joanette Y (1989) The bells test - a quantitative and qualitative test for visual neglect. Int J Clin Neuropsychol 11:49 54. Shipley WC (1946) Institute of living scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Spinnler H, Tognoni G (1987) Standardizzazione e taratura italiana di test neuropsicologici. Ital J Neurol Sci 6 [Suppl 8]:1 120. Spreen O, Strauss E (1998) A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary. New York: Oxford UP. Van der Horst L (1934) Constructive apraxia: psychological views on the conception of space. J Nerv Ment Dis 80:645 650.
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES Table 1s Patients demographic and lesion data. Sex Age (years) Education (years) Etiology Lesion location DPC Patients 1050 M 48 12 Meningioma Left DPC 1051 M 47 16 Stroke Left DPC, extending into VPC, and posterior temporal lobe. SS M 75 17 Intracerebral hemorrhage Right DPC. AS M 62 17 Intracerebral hemorrhage Left DPC. VPC Patients 1022 M 74 12 Stroke Left TPJ, including the AnG. 1047 F 67 13 Stroke Right TPJ, including the AnG. PK F 59 14 Stroke Right TPJ. SM F 47 8 Meningioma Left VPC, including the AnG, and extending to the occipital lobe. Normal controls 2F 60 13.5 Note: M = male; F = female; DPC = dorsal parietal cortex; VPC = ventral parietal cortex; AnG = angular gyrus; TPJ = temporo-parietal junction. 1
Table 2s Patients results in standardized neuropsychological tests. MMSE Shipley vocabulary Bell Cancellation test (L/R) Clock drawing task WCST # Cat. Verbal Fluency PPC PPR Part A Trail Making Test Part B HVLT- R WM Recall Retention Recognition # Errors DPC Patients 1050 29 29 17/17 3 7 18 3 38 26 80 24 10 11 12 1051 29 32 17/16 3 9 18 4 17 22 109 19 8 12 10 SS 30 35 18/17 3 6 11 7 55 61 81 24 5 8 4 AS 28 34 15/15 3 6 7 7 22 50 170 19 8 11 7 VPC Patients 1022 / 27 15/16 / 3 43 16 31 66 408 19 7 10 35 1047 29 32 15/16 3 5 40 11 42 51 73 25 8 12 12 PK 26 32.7 18/17 3 6 22 17 30 52 149 21 9 10 19 SM 30 / 16/16 3 6 10 7 44 / / 12* 6* / / Note: L = left; R = right; DPC = dorsal parietal cortex; VPC = ventral parietal cortex; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; PPC: perseverations of previous criterion, PPR: perseverations of previous response; HVLT-R = Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Revised; WM = working memory. (*) = data from the Buschke Fuld list-learning test. (/) = missing data. Values in bold are 2-SD below average. 2
Table 3s Pearson correlation analyses between percent signal change in DPC and VPC and relevant behavioural indices. DPC VPC AnG/MTG VPC AnG Percent signal change (Intact NoOld) (ACC Intact - ACC NoOld )/Acc NoOld r = 0.24 p = 0.39 r = 0.07 p = 0.79 r = -0.09 p = 0.74 (RTs NoOld RTs Intact )/RTs NoOld r = 0.63 p < 0.05 r = 0.13 p = 0.65 r = -0.20 p = 0.50 Percent signal change (NoOld) Hit Rates NoOld r = 0.09 p = 0.75 r = 0.56 p < 0.05 r = 0.40 p = 0.15 RTs NoOld r = -0.13 p = 0.64 r = -0.02 p = 0.93 r = 0.16 p = 0.56 Percent signal change (Recombined) Hit Rates Recombined r = 0.45 p = 0.10 r = -0.26 p = 0.36 r = -0.19 p = 0.49 RTs Recombined r = 0.24 p = 0.39 r = -0.14 p = 0.62 r = -0.18 p = 0.53 Note: DPC = dorsal parietal cortex; VPC = ventral parietal cortex; ACC = accuracy; RTs = reaction times. Significant correlations are in bold. 3
Table 4s Behavioural results by group and condition in the neuropsychological study. VPC Patients DPC Patients Normal Controls Frequency RTs Frequency RTs Frequency RTs Hits (frequency and RTs) Intact 0.75 (0.08) 1615 (301) 0.69 (0.09) 2239 (993) 0.84 (0.03) 884 (89) Recombined 0.68 (0.03) 2005 (407) 0.73 (0.07) 1763 (549) 0.73 (0.04) 990 (88) NewOld 0.67 (0.07) 1650 (210) 0.70 (0.07) 1799 (635) 0.71 (0.06) 994 (86) NoOld 0.68 (0.04) 1813 (261) 0.76 (0.10) 2005 (761) 0.71 (0.05) 1157 (91) CRs (frequency and RTs) OldNew 0.83 (0.06) 1930 (476) 0.83 (0.06) 1854 (0.06) 0.90 (0.03) 1090 (96) NewNew 0.85 (0.06) 1874 (387) 0.80 (0.08) 1942 (0.08) 0.86 (0.03) 1127 (111) NoNew 0.72 (0.06) 2105 (401) 0.80 (0.04) 1953 (0.04) 0.85 (0.05) 1206 (107) Memory Accuracy (Hits-False-Alarms) Intact (Intact OldNew) 0.58 (0.12) 0.52 (0.07) 0.74 (0.04) Recombined (Recombined OldNew) 0.51 (0.08) 0.56 (0.10) 0.63 (0.04) New (NewOld-NewNew) 0.52 (0.10) 0.50 (0.10) 0.57 (0.05) No (NoOld-NoNew) 0.40 (0.09) 0.56 (0.07) 0.56 (0.07) Effects of valid memory cueing. Behavioral changes in the Intact condition relative to the: NoOld condition (ACCIntact-ACCNoOld)/ACCNoold 0.44 (0.18) -0.08 (0.06) 0.43 (0.14) (RTsIntact-RTsNoOld)/RTsNoold -0.10 (0.10) 0.16 (0.04) -0.23 (0.05) NewOld condition (ACCIntact-ACCNewOld)/ACCNewOld 0.24 (0.33) 0.08 (0.08) 0.38 (0.15) (RTsIntact-RTsNewOld)/RTsNewOld -0.04 (0.05) 0.24 (0.10) -0.10 (0.05) Effects of invalid memory cueing. Behavioral changes in the Recombined condition relative to the: NoOld condition (HITsRecomb-HITsNoOld)/HITsNoOld 0.00 (0.02) -0.02 (0.04) 0.07 (0.07) (RTsRecomb-RTsNoOld)/RTsNoOld 0.08 (0.07) -0.06 (0.06) -0.13 (0.05) NewOld condition (HITsRecomb-HITsNewOld)/HITsNewOld 0.07 (0.15) 0.04 (0.03) 0.07 (0.06) (RTsRecomb-RTsNewOld)/RTsNewOld 0.19 (0.13) 0.01 (0.09) 0.00 (0.04) Intact condition (HITsRecomb-HITsIntact)/HITsIntact -0.07 (0.06) 0.08 (0.09) -0.12 (0.04) (RTsRecomb-RTsIntact)/RTsIntact 0.24 (0.16) -0.18 (0.07) 0.14 (0.08) Note: DPC = dorsal parietal cortex; VPC = ventral parietal cortex; CRs = correct rejections; ACC = accuracy; RTs = reaction times. Values in parentheses represent standard errors of the mean. 4