HancockLMGaliotoRSamsonovA, et al. A proposed new taxonomy of cognitive phenotypes in multiple sclerosis: The International Classification of Cognitive Disorders in MS (IC-CoDiMS). Mult Scler J. Epub ahead of print 14 October 2022. DOI: 10.1177/13524585221127941.
2.
SandryJSimonetDVBrandstadterR, et al. The symbol digit modalities test (SDMT) is Sensitive but non-specific in MS: Lexical access speed, memory, and information processing speed independently contribute to SDMT performance. Mult Scler Relat Disord2021; 51: 102950.
3.
PatelVPWalkerLASFeinsteinA. Deconstructing the symbol digit modalities test in multiple sclerosis: The role of memory. Mult Scler Relat Disord2017; 17: 184–189.
4.
JaegerJ. Digit symbol substitution test: The case for sensitivity over specificity in neuropsychological testing. J Clin Psychopharmacol2018; 38(5): 513–519.
5.
SandryJZuppichiniMRothbergJ, et al. Poor encoding and weak early consolidation underlie memory acquisition deficits in multiple sclerosis: Retroactive interference, processing speed, or working memory?Arch Clin Neuropsychol2019; 34: 162–182.
6.
ChenMHChiaravallotiNDGenovaHM, et al. Visual and motor confounds on the symbol digit modalities test. Mult Scler Relat Disord2020; 45: 102436.
7.
ArnettPACaddenMRomanCAF, et al. Sensory-motor and affective-fatigue factors are associated with symbol digit performance in multiple sclerosis. J Int Neuropsychol Soc2022; 28(4): 362–370.
8.
BerriganLILeFevreJAReesLM, et al. The symbol digit modalities test and the paced auditory serial addition test involve more than processing speed. Mult Scler Relat Disord2022; 68: 104229.
9.
TreviñoMZhuXLuYY, et al. How do we measure attention? Using factor analysis to establish construct validity of neuropsychological tests. Cogn Res Princ Implic2021; 6: 1–26.
BowieCRHarveyPD. Administration and interpretation of the Trail Making Test. Nat Protoc2006; 1(5): 2277–2281.
12.
NortonESWolfM. Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annu Rev Psychol2012; 63: 427–452.
