No announcement yet.

Benedict, et al. (2002). Frontal cortex atrophy predicts cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Benedict, et al. (2002). Frontal cortex atrophy predicts cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis.

    • Benedict RH, Bakshi R, Simon JH, Priore R, Miller C and Munschauer F (2002). Frontal cortex atrophy predicts cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 14:44-51. Summary: The association between regional measures of cortical atrophy and neuropsychological (NP) dysfunction was studied in 35 multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Patients underwent neurological examination, MRI, and NP testing. Blind quantitative MRI analysis yielded total T(2) lesion area (TLA) and third ventricle width (3VW). Cortical atrophy, rated by blind visual inspection, was more extensive in superior frontal and parietal cortices than in other regions. No MRI measures were correlated with depression scores. TLA and 3VW were significantly correlated with each NP test. Cortical atrophy measures for bilateral superior frontal cortex were retained in regression models predicting impairments in verbal learning, spatial learning, attention, and conceptual reasoning. The authors conclude that cerebral atrophy predicts NP impairment while accounting for the influence of TLA or 3VW. Regions of cortex most susceptible to atrophic and cognitive changes in MS are the right and left superior frontal lobes. Department of Neurology, State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine, Buffalo, USA.

    COMMENTS (FRONT, eg.1, 3, 5, sequencer), plus science criticism

    T(2) ?

    "No MRI measures were correlated with depression scores."
    I have not regarded so far messing with artificial energies into a brain to have to do particularily much with "depressions".


    To go for my terminology in this post:

    First emotion generator / eg.1 (hatching mammal emotions)I regard the most relevant where it comes to emotional balances aspects,
    my self as second most relevant, more to do with attitudes and decisions, as I do not regard my self as one of the "big" emotion source generators,
    eg.3 (hatching aggression and rankfighting emotions) is third,
    and then, with sort of a distance in relevance, comes eg.5 (to do with certain sorts of fear).

    Front I do not count among the emotion generators.

    Front is regarded relevant by me for example in/with:

    enabling me more parallel processing,
    longer concentration,

    to calculate me out math and other stuff,
    and in being, of (at least) two long term memory systems my self uses, sort of the detail data bank(s).

    Damages to front seem able to influence sort of
    in a more structured way
    planning ahead,

    to be less good in understanding or thinking about abstract stuff,
    to understand jokes, and, simplified, to sort of connect this with that in concepts,

    and to remember better.

    Problems with remembering
    can also result in forgetting important timings where one was supposed to show up some place,
    to tell people something one already told them, maybe even often, so it starts to get on their nerves that they have to hear this now the soandsomanieth time,

    while writing to remember less well what one already wrote before,
    and where the whole was supposed to go,

    so that this could also lead to repetitions,

    or starting a topic, and drifting off to another, and forgetting to finish the topic before,
    and leading to a more meandering, less well structured contents form.

    I am used to regard front problems more in MBD context:

    If front is too damaged, then,
    due to the loss of parallel processing capacities,
    the correlations for limbic own I central
    to other systems can change.

    This can be regarded as one of the most massive and most significant effects of massive front damages.

    Because own I cannot do that much parallel anymore, this can lead to a higher segregation between systems.

    Various MBDs might learn to jump between differing internal imputs (and also various exerternal), and in between sort of lapse into Third Stage from the stress.

    Third Stage is neither being fully awake nor being fully asleep.

    A more brain damaged might just sort of like sink into a black void and systems recovering.

    Another might shift to daydreaming or thinking about someone or something,
    but also being very far or fully segregated there with external data and lots of internal systems.

    If optical and motor and body data are getting too much, it can come to often high segregations from these.

    There is a systems cluster that I call the sequencer. I assume, simplified thalamus
    is a centering of the sequencer.
    The sequencer supervises main movement sequences.

    I also regard it as the main external navigator.

    I am not sure if the sequence extends till upper spine or not.

    I am also not sure if striate does not belong in with the sequencer or not.

    I assume the sequencer uses upper frontal cortex a bit similar
    like me front (that is lower in the frontal cortex,
    and that it enables longer concentration and more parallel.
    After a concussion damaging the left frontal cortex, the sequencer often seemed to get stuck, so logging with external data, maybe I found myself somewhere standing in the room, obviously having been on the way to somewhere.
    I had forgotten by then, where it was supposed to go, maybe hoping front (that was damaged there from the concussion, and as MBD probably before, anyway) will remember,
    and the sequencer just seeming to have gotten in the middle of whatever out of it.
    I assumed because upper frontal cortex did not enable longer concentration, and if it is also to do with long term memory, maybe just sort of having lost track and it not being recalling where the whole was supposed to go,

    but I am not sure on that.

    I know far less about upper frontal cortex,
    than about front.
    (But for both indirect, not from direct access
    into there, as I did with some other systems.)

    Usually I eventually recalled where the whole was supposed to go, maybe front having managed to remember.
    Anyway, happened often there.

    ((Hm, how was that about losing track ...
    Got a bit out of where I was.
    Also a bit tricky to try to pattering match
    internal systems patterings or data about that
    to a Westie science English text where I did not understand all the terms, also not all the regional references,
    and try to express about results in another language.))

    Guess I just go on with segregation:

    Own I might leave more to the sequencer, and rather far segregate off from a lot.

    With that it can become important that stuff stays where being used to it, so that, simplified, the sequencer can find it.

    (The sequencer in more hazy and less narrow use by me, can also mean motor programs more generally.

    Although if getting more detail picky, the sequencer does not register by me to have to do with little substuff, like supervising single fingers or stuff like that,
    but with the supervision of the main movement control sequences.)

    In a wider and more hazy meaning of the term sequencer, it is to do a lot with sort of automatic programs.

    If some non-MBD is sticking stuff where one is not used to it,
    it might take to log with external data and try to find out where it is.
    As parallel processing is down, though there I am not to sure what all systems are to do with it in the case of optics,
    how much can be perceived might be far more narrow than with many other humans.

    For me for example the range might be about 20 cm areas and just 2-3 items parallel.
    (So maybe I could see 3 remote controls are in a 20 cm region on a table, but it taking several seconds to notice, there are 2 lighters between them. Then I might perceive the 2 lighters, but no longer the remote controls.
    As without struggling around 5 objects parallel might be too much.
    My partner had the annoying habit to put stuff elseplace and seeming to assume, if something is just about 30 cm or even less from where I am used to that it is, I would be able to perceive it. No.
    I look where I am used to that it is, and the radius around might be 10 cm or less.
    So 20 cm or 30 from there is not seen by me there, and I might just go off and search another place, where else I might have put it.)

    It can be straining to find out where another put something.
    If the other insists it is not supposed to be there, or one cannot do something about it, it might take to reprogram sequencer programs to adapt to that now it is there.
    Also if a way to a place, like changing school or a working place changes, it might take a bit to reprogram the sequencer so it can find the way there O.K. enough rather alone.

    This might require, simplified, a bunch of logs with external data, and be rather straining.

    Under the hazer term "autism" and under the Westie stupid and insulting term "ADS" (where a form by me was renamed FLG, Frontal Limits, maybe due to Genetic causes
    ... but in an MBD book I wrote commenting, that them themselves seem the ones, whose right it is to find a suited term),
    there might reports found about insisting that stuff is in the used to place.

    When one told me about, simplified, front damages, with what I renamed FLG,
    I calculated around a while, and asked her, before I heard that about there, that they also like so-called "autists" often like to remain stuff where used to it, correct? And she said yes.

    The calculation went something like that:

    Them front damages there,
    (where I wondered, before she said it can have genetic causes, if an older genetic program might have to do with that),
    should lead to less parallel processing capacities, also for own I, and with that differing correlations between own I and emotion generators,
    and also more segregation to the sequencer.
    With that the sequencer is likely to work more automomously,
    and with that it seems important that stuff is where being used to.
    So that own I does not need to go so much for the strain of processing about external data.
    And maybe the strain of having to find out where stuff went, and having to reprogram and supervise around, until the sequencer manages alone again.

    As that part with the stuff in the same place was one where I thought, that part I can check easily via asking, I asked her that. Though already expecting she confirms it.
    (Was a teacher asking me about a young man with what I renamed FLG getting into her class.
    I at times process about MBD correlated stuff for others. Though I prefer for other MBD.
    As with non-MBD can be more non-acceptance, and trying to force them towards non-MBD stuff not good for them, and on a level trying to get at data also for that.
    While when an MBD lists data to me and hopes I might be able to say something of relevance to something there, it is a more pure attempt to try to understand something.

    If I can say a bit about some stuff, can depend on if I get a pattering match or not.)

    I assume that with various of the born MBD the sequencer can adapt to an extent towards acting rather automously often, and simplified seeming often alone without own I in central navigation control.

    An at times a bit heated dispute was if the sequencer (by some also called auto-pilot) is or is not intelligent.
    I regard it so, though not like me. In a wider meaning of the term sequencer, it can learn alone, decide alone and has memory access that I do not have access to.
    But I also heard arguments alike, nah, is just all sort of automatic.

    Anyway, I have the opinion it can turn the sequencer more intelligent to be often alone in central navigation control without own I along.

    To get back to segregative stuff:

    Correlations with emotion generators can change.

    Due to less parallel processing capacities, there might be higher segregation between them and own I.

    Also own I might already be totally busy and short of overload at times maybe processing something
    without the parallel processing capacities of front, that might however by others be expected in more or less open demands.

    In that a lot of data might not be processed, also in context with lower front capacities themselves,
    and that can include:

    Not paying attention to the facial expressions and gestures of the other much or at all,
    avoiding eyes contact and a load of emotional data, not tracing emotions of the others
    (and in case of MBD there might be also damages in emotion generators and partially sort of the counter to receive and understand something inside too damaged that it can sort of receive, and that it can be understood ... ),
    maybe also not being willing to go for the strain of more parallel processing to even try,

    and also in context with front damages
    might be less capacities to think about how own reactions are perceived about others,
    what they are thinking about it,

    and less capacties to keep parallel sort of monitoring reactions of emotion generators,
    and to counter-steer various,
    so often they might react alike more autonomously compared to various other persons.

    This can lead to high problems on social levels with others.

    In reaction to that it can come to negative emotional reactions from others,
    and to more problems within friendships, partnerships and colleagues at work, and with other people.

    In wake consequence emotional balances of several of the emotion generators might get disturbed.

    These disturbances might lead to partially higher emotional reactions, where again there might be often less counter-control than with many around,
    and such to an extent could lead to further problems with others.

    In books about MBD some of these for example might be found, also in writings of parents of children with brain damages, where various might also keep being at the error of disregarding too far, that the child just can't like many non-brain damaged, and again and again trying to get the child to do stuff, for which the brain of the child is just not suited, and causing further balances disturbances in the child.

    (Some then even start chemical attacks into the organs and on the receptor molecule levels of the child, chemically brain raping the child, and leading up to serious systems damages, and partially further brain damages and the person becoming even more mentally handicapped.
    Also zombie maker drugs like Ritalin there are used, to sort of traquillize the child, irregardless of the looong list of potential damages up to reduction of white and red blood cells, growth reduction, heart problems, brain damages, etc.)

    Quite a bunch of data about wake effects of front damages can be also found in some MBD texts, or under the stupid and insulting term "ADS".

    Herealands the "research" then is usually left to non-MBDs about it, as the laws here are that it takes A-levels to be admitted to university, and I seem nearly exceptional a bit as MBD to have managed A-levels, and if my mother had not gotten on my nerves might have left school after the 11th grade and then thought about getting money together to travel Africa.

    Anyway, so basically for most MBD, though I regard among some of them some of the most remarkable internal brain researchers of our age, here the door to science is banged into their face, and as a wake effect it seems, some then turn to Magie where they do not have that effect, while in Westie universities then the research, also about front damages, is run by people who do not have high front damages,
    and just sort of goggle alike from the outside at those who have, and undertand little to nothing about a lot there.

    Also the education for MBD people is then given to people who do not have MBD, and them being regarded to be more appropriate in judging what is correct there than those with it.
    The resulting educational concept seems then too often to try to force a child with a damaged brain to do stuff with it that is outright bad for it, and trying to force the person to act and become like a non-brain damaged, irregardless if that is not possible.
    Some are shoved off to special education schools, where the aims might still be rather along these lines, and special capacities often little to nothing supported in education at all.

    As a wake result a lot of brain damaged are rather far off with science, would understand a text like the one that I rather far left commenting here even far less than me,
    and I already got rather little of that.

    An additional problem, even if trying to understand Westie neuro texts can be, that their naming of systems is often outright illogical seeming.

    Systems that belong together are named apart, systems that belong apart are named together, and the namings might be like after the name of some guy instead of after the main function of the system.

    Neuro belief / religion then tends to often write utterly erratic mental crap like facts about brain systems, between real data about brain systems.

    Simplified, if I were to do an action, where me and the sequencer interlink,
    and it is to do with spatial stuff, and in sort of a shunt relay also between me and the sequencer something is going active, they might next be very sure that the spatial memory stuff is coming centrally from that region, because that region there in other mammal persons they abuse then goes active (or via messing around with artificial energies in human brains noticing so).

    Or they might have the believe, it is justified to abuse women and men of related kinds, because their frontal cortex is smaller, and therefore own I is tried to be stuffed into front, irregardless how illogical that is, even from their own data and perversions of Westie science like decades of lobotomy (where BTW also a lot of data in context with front can be found), and where, if I am not mistaken, Havard continued alike perversions till recent years and maybe still now.

    So in wake effects there can be books, where not like with MBD acidheads perspective in the brain is going from own I to here or there,
    but from the frontal cortex to here or there, and again and again front being tried to be made out like a main command central and alike the center of own I.

    To follow such a text might require to sort of transcalculate onself from one's central limbic position
    (that I do not like to go into in a place with perversions like here mentioned into persons of other kinds,
    and due to such deeds also not generally on the net or to certain people)
    and elseplace to front in imagination, sort of turn around, and try to regard the brain backwards.

    If handicapped in spatial calculating, that can be rather difficult.

    So simplified there might stand a whole load of erratic crap put like facts, external neocortex systems being treated like main command centrals and like stuff that is to do with the self and not them is centered there,
    and between the pile of errors and weird angles, and sticking brain systems in namings together that do not belong together, and settings others apart that belong together,
    might then also come real facts, but wildly intermingled with erratic fantasies put like facts.

    I have read that in what I named Westie science neuro religion very often.

    Simplified to read various neuro texts might require to already know from one's brain well enough about various systems, to discern better when them are going on about something, if that is actually correct or not.
    So if it is about a system, where oneself has no internal data on that one,
    it can land with problem, that if just taking what they write about it, there is not the filter option to just compare it with data of one's own brain, if this is correct or not.

    So that way one can't just read it and sort of mentally throw the crap out and filter out the relevant and correct stuff there.

    It can turn into an art to read these texts, and figure out what is actually correct there and what not.

    And unfortunately the mix of erratic stuff and correct data in neurology is not just a rarely encountered exception.

    Also Westie science segregates itself off from many others, and with that the data exchange that is taking place between a lot of other branches, is not taking place the same from other branches to them.

    If I were to take me from LSD, one from Magie, and one from Westie science, and were to ask all three about data about all three,
    I might be able to tell about all three something, some from Magie might be also able to tell about all three something, but the Westie scientist might know good as nothing about Magie, and very little about LSD.

    When communicating with one from Magie, Reiki, Meditation or many other branches,
    or communicating with one from science,
    the difference might be the following:

    With the others, both use their terms, explain about various the other does not understand, to an extent maybe also start to use some of that of the other, and with a lot one can magically communicate about some brain energetic aspects for example, also.

    With one of Westie science one can normally not magically communicate, because they never bothered to learn even just the starts of that, the Westie scientist might use his branches words and not find it worth the bother to explain them, while meanwhile reacting maybe like annoyed that one doesn't, trying terminology monopoly and trying to block terminology from other branches,
    and if it is an USie, maybe straight trying monopoly with the entire language.

    In the branches terminology might be then also reflected to an extent how far the integration or non-integration is going.

    So in Magie for example one might hear third eye or forehead chakra.
    Third eye / drittes Auge seems to come more from here, while with chakra I am not sure if that is from India or where that is from.
    A term like akasha is said here to be from Indian Magie from a group famous for telekinetics, but with Chakra I am not sure.

    Personally I prefer drittes Auge, just because that seems the older term here, though calling it a chakra is O.K., too.
    With LSD Akashasurfen / LSD akasha surfing, the mix goes straight between 3 languages, German science, Indian Magie and English.

    While in Westie science terms seem to be less integrative, and for example I do not recall the term forehead chakra or chakra at all there at the moment in usage.
    Maybe they are too sense censored magically to usually find Chakren relevant at all.

    I trailed rather far off the topic I assume, but there was something to that test, where I sort of admired the for me not unusual headblindness of Westie science, needing to come with machines and then rather hesitantly seeming to have guess and half somehow find out some about some brain system, instead of having the concept to either check in one's own melon what it does, and if there not able to at all, figure out where there is likely to be a bunch of data on that, and try there.

    (For example also with parts of lobotomy wake effects data.
    Just due to seemingly high headblindness in their own heads, I am not sure if they could discern what pertains to front direct, and what are wake effects from front damages well from each other there.)

    I guess parts of what bugged me in that text is, that there is data that is partially quite long around, but that in the typical Westie fashion they just ignore that.
    Alike pretending to actually care, but having come amazingly little far in such.
    I might then either straight say I ain't care much, just does not interest me much,
    or try to think about who registers to have for example front data damages, or have parietal data, or whatever, and if thinking of one, thinking about how difficult it would be to reach that person, or if it is more like a pattering in the text of one with it,
    if I actually find it worth to sort of read texts there for these patterings.

    (For example in an English autism e-room was one, where again and again his texts had front damages patterings to me in them. Larry? Not sure on the name anymore.
    Not, that I can discern all well there.
    Just meaning, if I thought about where to get me some frontal cortex damages data, there'd be parts of lobotomy and various MBD stuff, FLG, of course data from my brain about it, a bunch from neuro and various other stuff scoring.)

    "Cortical atrophy measures for bilateral superior frontal cortex were retained in regression models predicting impairments in verbal learning, spatial learning, attention, and conceptual reasoning."

    I am too lazy now to search the net for where in the frontal cortex regions superior frontal cortex is.
    However I suspect what they might call Wernicke's might have to do with verbal learning?
    Reasoning is simplified a mix of own I and front capacities.
    With spatial learning, I am not too sure which systems are all able to store spatial data, but I assume at least two in the frontal cortex.
    Not sure if the superior whatever is one of them, but damages in them two might quite a bit.

    With "attention", that is typically Westie "science", to not discern between differing attentions systems.

    And also to leave out the correlations to commmand centrals like own I or the sequencer.
    With "superior" whatever I cannot judge at the moment, if that one is to do with such,
    but if front got zoinked a badie, that would effect my attentions capacities in wake effects, and of course that of front,
    and if upper frontal cortex got damaged enough, I guess the sequencer would fare less well with stuff requiring longer lasting attentions.

    However I am not the sequencer and the sequencer is not me.

    But I don't know about all frontal cortex regions, nor which was meant there.