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 measureVolume
Temporal pole integrityVolume
Temporal pole integrity
ResectionHippocampusResectionHippocampus
Verbal memory
WMS-R Story−0.390.50*,a,b0.13−0.270.470.20
D&P Verbal memory−0.240.56*,a,b0.41−0.370.52*,a0.41
CAVLT Learning−0.48*0.360.60**,a,b−0.430.340.12
CAVLT loss after delay−0.010.04−0.170.490.170.10
Visual memory
WMS-R Design−0.41*0.340.41*−0.320.210.15
D&P Visual memory−0.180.51*,a0.27−0.53*,a0.120.10
Semantic memory
IQ-derived semantic memory−0.340.190.29−0.360.330.24
Category fluency−0.67**,a,b0.57*,a0.53*−0.390.460.39
BPVS−0.47*0.290.50*,a,b−0.280.410.22
Left temporal lobe surgery, ipsilesional
Right temporal lobe surgery, ipsilesional
Memory measureVolume
Temporal pole integrityVolume
Temporal pole integrity
ResectionHippocampusResectionHippocampus
Verbal memory
WMS-R Story−0.390.50*,a,b0.13−0.270.470.20
D&P Verbal memory−0.240.56*,a,b0.41−0.370.52*,a0.41
CAVLT Learning−0.48*0.360.60**,a,b−0.430.340.12
CAVLT loss after delay−0.010.04−0.170.490.170.10
Visual memory
WMS-R Design−0.41*0.340.41*−0.320.210.15
D&P Visual memory−0.180.51*,a0.27−0.53*,a0.120.10
Semantic memory
IQ-derived semantic memory−0.340.190.29−0.360.330.24
Category fluency−0.67**,a,b0.57*,a0.53*−0.390.460.39
BPVS−0.47*0.290.50*,a,b−0.280.410.22

*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.

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 measureVolume
Temporal pole integrityVolume
Temporal pole integrity
ResectionHippocampusResectionHippocampus
Verbal memory
WMS-R Story−0.390.50*,a,b0.13−0.270.470.20
D&P Verbal memory−0.240.56*,a,b0.41−0.370.52*,a0.41
CAVLT Learning−0.48*0.360.60**,a,b−0.430.340.12
CAVLT loss after delay−0.010.04−0.170.490.170.10
Visual memory
WMS-R Design−0.41*0.340.41*−0.320.210.15
D&P Visual memory−0.180.51*,a0.27−0.53*,a0.120.10
Semantic memory
IQ-derived semantic memory−0.340.190.29−0.360.330.24
Category fluency−0.67**,a,b0.57*,a0.53*−0.390.460.39
BPVS−0.47*0.290.50*,a,b−0.280.410.22
Left temporal lobe surgery, ipsilesional
Right temporal lobe surgery, ipsilesional
Memory measureVolume
Temporal pole integrityVolume
Temporal pole integrity
ResectionHippocampusResectionHippocampus
Verbal memory
WMS-R Story−0.390.50*,a,b0.13−0.270.470.20
D&P Verbal memory−0.240.56*,a,b0.41−0.370.52*,a0.41
CAVLT Learning−0.48*0.360.60**,a,b−0.430.340.12
CAVLT loss after delay−0.010.04−0.170.490.170.10
Visual memory
WMS-R Design−0.41*0.340.41*−0.320.210.15
D&P Visual memory−0.180.51*,a0.27−0.53*,a0.120.10
Semantic memory
IQ-derived semantic memory−0.340.190.29−0.360.330.24
Category fluency−0.67**,a,b0.57*,a0.53*−0.390.460.39
BPVS−0.47*0.290.50*,a,b−0.280.410.22

*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.

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close