Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844
DOI 10.1007/s12311-012-0363-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Cognition in Friedreich Ataxia
Antonieta Nieto & Rut Correia & Erika de Nóbrega &
Fernando Montón & Stephany Hess & Jose Barroso
Published online: 16 February 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) is the most frequent of
the inherited ataxias. However, very few studies have exam-
ined the cognitive status of patients with genetically defined
FRDA. Our aim was to study cognitive performance of FRDA
patients taking into account the motor problems characteristic
of this clinical population. Thirty-six FRDA patients were
administered a comprehensive neuropsychological battery
measuring multiple domains: processing speed, attention,
working memory, executive functions, verbal and visual
memory, visuoperceptive and visuospatial skills, visuocon-
structive functions, and language. Thirty-one gender, age,
years of education, and estimated IQ-matched healthy partic-
ipants served as control subjects. All participants were native
Spanish speakers. Patients showed decreased motor and men-
tal speed, problems in conceptual thinking, a diminished
verbal fluency, deficits in acquisition of verbal information
and use of semantic strategies in retrieval, visuoperceptive and
visuoconstructive problems, and poor action naming. Scores
on the depression inventory were significantly higher in
patients than controls, but depression did not account for
group differences in cognitive performance. The observed
pattern of neuropsychological impairment is indicative of
executive problems and parieto-temporal dysfunction. Neuro-
pathological and neuroimaging studies with FRDA patients
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s12311-012-0363-9) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
A. Nieto (*) : R. Correia : E. de Nóbrega : S. Hess : J. Barroso
School of Psychology, University of La Laguna,
38205, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
e-mail: anieto@ull.es
F. Montón
Department of Neurology, Hospital N.S. La Candelaria,
S/C de Tenerife, Spain
have reported only mild anomalies in cerebral hemispheres.
Thus, cognitive impairment in FRDA is probably caused by
the interruption of the cerebro-cerebellar circuits that have
been proposed as the anatomical substrate of the cerebellar
involvement in cognition.
Keywords Cerebellum . Cognition . Friedreich ataxia .
Neuropsychology
Introduction
Traditionally, the cerebellum has been regarded as a motor
mechanism, but this view of its function is being challenged
by observations from neuroanatomical, neuroimaging, and
neuropsychological studies, which suggest that it also plays
a role in cognitive activity [1–6]. Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) is
the most frequent syndrome of the cerebellar ataxias. It is
caused in more than 95% of cases by a homozygous triplet
GAA expansion in the first intron of the frataxin gene (FXN,
previously known as FRDA, X25) on chromosome 9q13,
while the remaining patients are compound heterozygotes
for a GAA expansion in the disease-causing range in one
FXN allele and another inactivating FXN point mutations in
the other allele [7]. Both types of mutations lead to a marked
deficiency of frataxin [8, 9]. Frataxin is a mitochondrial mem-
brane protein involved in iron distribution. Frataxin deficiency
causes iron accumulation in mitochondria, fundamentally in
cardiac muscle and in the cerebellar dentate nucleus [10],
which, in turn, produces mitochondrial dysfunction [11]. This
is probably what is responsible for the degenerative changes in
FRDA [9, 12, 13]. The neuropathological changes of FRDA
fundamentally involve the spinal cord, with degeneration of
posterior columns and spinocerebellar tracts, and the dentate
nucleus [13]. Pathological alteration of the cerebellum,
Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844 835

especially the dentate nucleus, could interfere with cognition, of three Spanish hospitals: Ntra. Sra. Candelaria Universi-
affecting cerebellar–thalamic–cortical loops [14, 15]. tary Hospital (S/C de Tenerife), Marqués de Valdecillas
Although established as the most common cerebellar atax- Hospital (Cantabria), and La Paz Hospital (Madrid). All
ia, almost no attention has been paid to cognitive functions in patients fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of Friedreich ataxia
FRDA. Earlier studies in patients with clinical diagnosis of [25] and presented the molecular genotype of FRDA. They
FRDA have described deficits in several cognitive domains presented a large homozygous GAA triplet-repeat expan-
such as information processing speed, executive and mnesic sion in the first intron of the frataxin gene (X25, within the
functions, as well as some visuospatial and visuoconstructive critical region on chromosome 9). They showed progressive
functions [3, 16–19]. However, these studies were undertaken ataxia of limbs and gait, nystagmus, and dysarthria. Twenty-
prior to the identification of the FA mutations, or the clinical nine patients had typical FA (age of onset before 25 years
diagnosis was not confirmed by genetic molecular analysis. old) and seven cases had late onset FA. The mean duration
There are very few studies that examined the cognitive status of illness was 15.89 (SD08.63), and the mean age at disease
of patients with genetically defined FRDA and most of them onset was 18.06 years (SD09.40) (Table 1). All patients
have investigated specific cognitive functions. Our group ex- underwent a neurological examination. The Rankin Incapac-
amined verbal fluency in genetically proven FRDA using ity and the Nobile-Orazio Ataxia scales were used to quan-
different word retrieval [20]. We observed phonemic and action tify disease severity (score from 0—normal to 5—most
fluency impairments, suggesting a prefrontal dysfunction in impaired) [26, 27]. A Clinical Rating Scale modified from
FRDA. Corben et al. described impairment in motor program- Appollonio et al. [28] was used to quantify seven cerebellar
ming [21] and Klopper et al. [22] reported deficits in sustained signs (dysarthria, limb tone, postural tremor, upper and
volitional attention and working memory using the Test of lower limb ataxia, standing balance, and gait ataxia). Each
Everyday Attention [23]. To our knowledge, the only study of these was assigned a score from 0 (normal) to 4 (most
approaching a wide range of cognitive domains in FRDA is the
work published by Mantovan et al. [24]. In this study, 13 Table 1 Demographic characteristics and clinical features of patients
individuals with genetically proven FRDA were examined. and normal controls
Patients showed slowed information processing, reduced verbal
FA patients Controls p
span and visual memory, deficits in verbal fluency and alter-
(n036) (n031)
ation in complex visuoperceptual and visuoconstructive abili- Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
ties. Nonetheless, the interpretation of these results might be
hampered by the fact that the FRDA group showed an average Age 33.94 (12.23) 30.35 (8.34) 0.172
IQ lower than controls and two patients had an IQ below Education (years) 12.39 (4.09) 13.55 (3.23) 0.208
normal range. In addition, some conclusions reached by these Sexa 20/16 17/14 0.953
authors regarding specific cognitive functions (e.g., visual Handednessb 32/4 29/2 0.505
memory, visuoconstructive abilities, concrete thinking, and MMSE 28.81 (1.30) 29.23 (1.05) 0.157
poor capacity in concept formation) are supported by data that Information subtest 9.31 (3.36) 10.42 (2.50) 0.134
are not explicitly reported in their published manuscript. BDI 12.47 (10.27) 6.03 (6.31) 0.003c
In sum, given the current lack of results, more compre- Age at disease onset (years) 18.06 (9.40) – –
hensive neuropsychological explorations are needed to fur- Disease duration (years) 15.89 (8.63) – –
ther understand the cognitive impairment profile in FRDA. Rankin Incapacity Scale 3.00 (0.89) – –
Thus, our aim is to study these patients’ cognitive function- Nobile-Orazio Ataxia Scale 4.31 (1.01) – –
ing in a wide range of cognitive domains, trying to mitigate Appollonio CRS 13.47 (5.18) – –
the possible effects of their motor disturbances on their A. CRS dysarthria 1.72 (0.81) – –
performance in neuropsychological tasks. In addition, we A. CRS limb tone 0.72 (0.75) – –
examine a larger patient sample than that usually found in A. CRS postural tremor 0.32 (0.48) – –
FRDA studies, which might help to reduce inter-subject A. CRS upper limb ataxia 1.96 (0.84) – –
variability in the neuropsychological data. A. CRS lower limb ataxia 2.26 (0.91) – –
A. CRS standing balance 2.76 (1.09) – –
A. CRS gait ataxia 3.08 (1.04) – –
Methods A. CRS oculomotion 1.95 (1.59) – –

Participants CRS clinical rating scale

a
Sex (men/women)
b
Thirty-six FRDA patients participated in this study. The Handedness (right/left)
c
patients were consecutively recruited from the ataxia units Significant differences
836
impaired). In addition, the following abnormalities in ocular
movements were each scored as 1 when present: dysmetria,
nystagmus in the horizontal or vertical plane, slowed or
absent saccades, and saccadic breakdown of pursuit. Total
scores on this scale ranged from 0 to 32; the higher the
score, the worse the dysfunction. Magnetic resonance imag-
ing was performed on every patient. MR images were clin-
ically assessed by an experienced neuroradiologist. All
patients presented spinal cord atrophy, and two of them
presented mild cerebellar atrophy. Neither cerebral atrophy
nor focal lesions were observed.
The control group consisted of 31 subjects. Control par-
ticipants were free of neurological disease/injury, drug ad-
diction, and psychiatric illness histories. General cognition
was tested with a modified version of the Mini-Mental State
Examination [29]. The Information subtest of the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)-III [30] was also adminis-
tered as a general intelligence estimation measure. Patient
and control groups did not differ with respect to age, level of
education, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score,
and Information score (WAIS-III). Depression was assessed
by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) [31].
Both groups of participants were informed about the aim of
the investigation and participated voluntarily. All subjects
gave their informed consent. The data included in the manu-
script were obtained in accordance with the regulations of the
ethics committees of the University of La Laguna and in
compliance with the Helsinki Declaration for human research.
Materials
Participants completed an extensive battery of neuropsycho-
logical tests administered by an experienced clinical neuro-
psychologist over two sessions. Every session consisted of
2 h of assessment with a 20-min break between the first and
the second hour. Tests were chosen to examine cognitive
functioning in various cognitive domains (Table 2). In ad-
dition, all the tests were selected in such a way that no or
only limited movements had to be carried out by the patient.
Additionally, motor baseline tasks and statistical methods
were used to control for the differences in motor coordination
deficits, psychomotor slowness, and dysarthria. Only
nonstandard procedures will be described here.
Reaction Times Simple and choice reaction time tasks of the
Reaction Unit/Vienna System (RT) were used [32]. This
system permits the dissociation of the cognitive component
[decision time (DT)] and the motor component [motor time
(MT)]. Simple reaction time: A yellow light appeared ran-
domly, at which time the subject was instructed to remove
his/her index finger of the dominant hand from a rest button
and press another key as quickly as possible. Choice reac-
tion time: A red light appeared randomly in a background of
Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844
Table 2 Neuropsychological test administered grouped by cognitive
domains
Global screening
Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)
Information Subtest (WAIS-III)
Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI)
Reaction Time, Attention, and Working Memory (WM)
Simple Reaction Time (Pc-Vienna System)
Choice Reaction Time (Pc-Vienna System)
Continuous Performance Test (CPT-IP)
Stroop Word and Color Test
Digit Span (WMS-III)
Spatial Span (WMS-III)
Executive functions
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST)
Similarities Subtest (WAIS-III)
Verbal fluency (FAS, animals, and actions)
Memory and learning
Logical Memory (WMS-III)
California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT)
10/36 Spatial Recall Test (10/36 SRT)
Visuoperceptive, visuospatial, and visuoconstructive abilities
Judgment Line Orientation Test (JLOT)
Facial Recognition Test (FRT)
Minnesota Test
Block Design (WAIS-III)
Language
Noun and action naming
Anaphora comprehension
distractor stimuli. DT is the time interval between the ap-
pearance of the stimuli and release of the finger. MT is the
time interval between release of the finger and depression of
the second key. DT is a cognitive measure of information
processing speed. Motor time reflects motor and coordination
deficit [18]. Total reaction time is the sum of both components
(DT and MT).
Attention A computerized version of the Continuous Perfor-
mance Test-Identical pairs (CPT-IP) paradigm [33] was
administered in order to measure sustained attention. One
hundred fifty digits were auditory presented with an inter-
stimulus interval of 1 s. The subjects were instructed to
press the response button every time two identical letters
appeared consecutively (15% target stimuli). The total num-
ber of correct responses and omission and commission
errors were obtained. Selective attention was assessed with
the Stroop Color and Word Test [34]. This Stroop Test
version includes an index to assess the interference related
to the word–color conflict by comparing the subject’s per-
formance in the third sheet (Word–Color), with the same
Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844
subject’s performance in the other two neutral conditions
(Word and Color sheets). To calculate the interference index
(I), it is first required to calculate an expected score (ES)
from subject’s performance in the word and the color con-
ditions [ES 0 (word × color)/(word + color)] and then to
calculate the interference index by subtracting the expected
score from number of corrected responses emitted in the
third condition (I 0 word−color − ES).
Working memory was tested with digit span and spatial
span [forward and backwards; Wechsler Memory Scale
(WMS-III)] [35].
Executive functions were tested with the Wisconsin Card
Sorting Test (WCST) [36], Similarities subtest of the WAIS-
III [30], and Verbal fluency tasks. These tasks consist of
asking the participants to rapidly generate words beginning
by a given letter (phonemic fluency —FAS) [37], to generate
only animals (semantic fluency), and to rapidly generate verbs
(action fluency) [38].
Verbal memory was tested with the Logical Memory
subtest (immediate and delayed free recall and recognition
of two prose passages) of the WMS-III [35] and the Spanish
adaptation of the California Verbal Learning Test (learning
over five-trial presentation of a 16-word list, free and cued
delayed recall, recognition) [39, 40]. Visual memory was
tested with a modified 10/36 Spatial Recall Test (10/36)
[41], a spatial memory test that does not require good motor
control. A ten-dot pattern was displayed on a 6×6 grid.
Participants studied this arrangement for 10 s. Afterwards,
the pattern was removed and the participants reproduced it
from memory on an empty grid using poker chips. This
learning task continued over five trials and delayed visual
recall was assessed at 30 min. Visual recognition was mea-
sured employing a forced choice procedure in which four
grids with ten-dot patterns were presented. The participants
attempted to pick the grid with the correct pattern. This
forced choice procedure was given twice.
Visuoperceptive skills were tested with the Facial Recog-
nition Test (FRT) [42]. Abbreviated versions of the Judg-
ment of Line Orientation Test (JLOT—15 items) [42] and a
task of mental spatial rotation, the Minnesota Paper Form
Board Test [43], were used to assess visuospatial function-
ing. Finally, for the assessment of visuoconstructive skills, a
Modified Block Design subtest of the WAIS-III was select-
ed. This subtest was administered as described in the manual
[30] except that if the design was not correctly completed
within the standard administration time, we allowed the
subject to work on the problem for one extra minute. The
number of correct blocks was recorded without any kind of
speed credits in order to take into account the motor deficits
of patients. A motor baseline task was also administered and
execution time was recorded. This task was equivalent to the
original Block Design Test in motor demand but had mini-
mal perceptive and planning requirements. It consisted of
837
making two designs, one four-block design and one nine-
block design, with all the red faces of the blocks at the top.
Language was assessed with a naming task by visual
confrontation of pictorial stimuli and an anaphora comprehen-
sion task. These tasks were designed by our group with the aim
of measuring both language production and comprehension.
The naming task consists of 40 stimuli representing elements
(noun naming) and 20 stimuli depicting action scenes (action
naming). Nouns and actions were paired in those variables
known to affect naming: every action item was paired with
two noun items in word frequency [44] and nominal agreement
[45]. Stimuli are line drawings of objects in black and white,
taken from the work of Cuetos et al. [46], from the Interna-
tional Picture Naming Project [47] and the materials of Druks
and Masterson [48]. Stimuli presentation was computerized
using E-Prime v1.1 [49]. The participants were instructed to
recall the name of the concept represented (either the noun
corresponding to the element drawn or the verb corresponding
to the action depicted). Hits were recorded.
The anaphora comprehension task consisted of 20 senten-
ces with anaphoric expressions, ten non-ambiguous and ten
ambiguous. Ambiguity is defined in terms of gender, thus
when it is possible to discriminate the antecedent based solely
on its gender, the anaphora resolution is easier than when there
is more than one word in the sentence which agrees in gender
with the anaphoric pronoun. Thus, in our design, we consider
two types of pronominal anaphora: (1) non-ambiguous, in
which the anaphora is resolved by the gender key (e.g., Alba
gave a painkiller to Eduardo as he had a headache) and (2)
ambiguous, where gender does not solve the ambiguity, re-
quiring a semantic interpretation of the sentence to solve
it (e.g., Alba gave a painkiller to Mercedes as she had a
headache). Since pronominal anaphors are very common lin-
guistic expressions that give coherence and continuity to
speech, the aim of this task is to assess the ability to make
the necessary inferences to comprehend sentences involving
anaphora. All sentences were presented in auditory format by
E-Prime computer software. Participants were instructed to
listen to a series of sentences and to look at the computer
screen where two words would appear during each sentence
auditory presentation. These words correspond to the charac-
ters in the opening sentence, that is, the subject (Alba) and the
object (Eduardo) of the sentence. After each sentence presen-
tation, the participants were asked to answer a question re-
garding either the subject (Who gave a painkiller?) or the
object (Who had a headache?) of the sentence. Responses
were registered by means of a two-button panel and partic-
ipants were instructed to press the button corresponding to the
correct answer (either right button if the correct answer is the
word present at the right side of the screen or left button for the
word at the left side). In some cases, due to motor impairment,
the patients responded orally and the tester registered the
response. We recorded the number of hits and errors.
838 Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844

Data Analysis With regard to subjects’ performance in the Stroop Test,

All the statistical analyses were performed with Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, Chicago, IL) version
15.0 for Windows. Groups were compared using univariate
and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), or t
test where appropriate. Violations of equality of variance
between groups were established using Levene’s test, and
thus, Welch correction was used when necessary. Statistical
significance was taken as p≤0.05 and Bonferroni test cor-
rection was applied to account for multiple comparisons
among means within each task, adjusting the α to α/n,
where n is the number or comparisons performed [50].
Analysis has been performed to account for the effect of
possible covariables. Correlations between variables were
determined by Pearson’s coefficient r.
Results
Reaction Time, Attention, and Working Memory
FRDA patients significantly differed from the controls in the
three task trials (word, F(1, 62)073.25, p<0.0001; color, F
(1, 62)053.82, p<0.0001; and word–color, F(1, 62)035.48,
p<0.0001). However, there were no significant differences
when their scores in the Stroop Interference Index were
compared (Table 3).
Regarding CPT measures, we also analyzed performance
differences between the two halves of the task in order to
explore a differential effect on the second half associated
with its greater demand of sustained attention. With this
purpose, we conducted a two-way ANOVA including the
within-subjects factor CPT (first half vs. second half) and
the between-subjects factor group (FRDA patients vs. con-
trols). The interaction between these two factor was not
significant [F(1, 32)00.006, p00.937]. There were no sig-
nificant differences between FRDA patients and controls [F
(1, 32)00.301, p00.587], and both groups’ performance
was significantly higher in the first half [×(Sd) 010.74
(1.50)] than in the second half [×(Sd)09.97 (1.88)] of the
CPT [F(1, 32)04.639, p00.039].

As Table 3 shows, significant differences were found in both Executive Functions

decision and motor reaction times. In contrast, there were no
significant differences in any of the CPT accuracy measures, Table 4 shows that FRDA patients showed significantly
Digit, and Spatial Span Tests. poorer performance than controls in the Similarities subtest,
but did not significant differ in any of the WCST measures
Table 3 Performance by FRDA patients and normal controls in meas- included in our analysis. FRDA patients showed significant-
ures of attention, reaction time, and WM ly poorer performance than the controls in all verbal fluency
measures (Table 4). In order to control for the possible
FRDA Controls
effects of articulatory deficits, we followed two procedures.
(n036) (n031)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p On one hand, we analyzed the correlation between the

Simple decision time (ms) 426.14 308.37 0.0001ac

(109.92) (50.15) Table 4 Performance by FRDA patients and normal controls in exec-
Simple motor time (ms) 362.31 170.10 0.0001ac utive functions
(145.37) (55.71)
Choice decision time (ms) 956.41 632.07 0.0001ac FRDA Controls
(225.37) (11.35) (n036) (n028)
Choice motor time (ms) 548.48 454.97 0.0001ac Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p
(107.94) (68.07)
CPT right responses 21.07 (1.91) 20.47 (3.22) 0.533b Similarities subtest 9.00 (3.00) 11.06 (2.94) 0.026d
CPT omission errors 1.80 (1.86) 2.47 (3.22) 0.477b WCST right responsesa 68.82 (8.56) 73.11 (10.48) 0.236c
CPT commission errors 0.27 (0.46) 0.05 (0.23) 0.085b WCST categories achieveda 4.91 (1.92) 5.50 (1.23) 0.260c
Stroop interference index 1.71 (6.83) 0.94 (8.52) 0.686a WCST perseveration indexa 14.29 (6.31) 11.33 (6.40) 0.200c
Digit Span Forward 5.36 (1.20) 5.90 (1.11) 0.060a FAS 26.89 (8.73) 37.87 (7.71) 0.0001cd
Digit Span Backward 4.28 (1.14) 4.71 (1.32) 0.155a Animalb 18.92 (4.59) 23.77 (4.18) 0.0001cd
Spatial Span Forward 5.50 (1.03) 6.00 (1.12) 0.145a Action 13.42 (4.96) 20.23 (5.45) 0.0001cd
Spatial Span Backward 5.50 (1.5) 5.61 (0.80) 0.697a
WCST Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
CPT Continuous Performance Test a
Results from 11 patients
a
Significance level of α/400.0125 b
Results from 35 patients
b
Significance level of α/300.016 c
Significance level of α/300.0160
c
Significant differences according to Bonferroni adjusted α values d
Significant differences according to Bonferroni-adjusted α values
(α/n) (α/n)
Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844
dysarthria score from the Appollonio Clinical Rating Scale
and the patients’ performance on every verbal fluency task.
Only action fluency showed a significant correlation (FAS,
r0−0.219, p00.206; animal, r0−0.294, p00.087; action,
r0−0.333, p00.050). However, it did not show a significant
effect as a covariable when the subsequent analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) was performed [F(1, 63)03.168,
p00.080]. On the other hand, we decided also to divide
the FRDA group into patients without dysarthria or with
only mild dysarthria (non-dysarthric patients) and patients
with moderate or severe dysarthria according to the dysar-
thria item of the Appollonio Clinical Rating Scale. Perform-
ances on fluency measures were reanalyzed for control
participants and non-dysarthric FRDA. These two groups
did not significant differ in age, education, and MMSE.
Non-dysarthric FRDA patients also performed significantly
worse than controls in the three verbal fluency measures
(Table 5).
In addition, although moderate and significant correla-
tions were found between total reaction time and each of the
verbal fluency measures (FAS, r0−0.463, p00.001; animal,
r0−0.330, p00.020; action, r0−0.430, p00.002), total re-
action time did not show a significant effect when subse-
quent ANCOVA was performed [FAS, F(1, 46)01.327, p0
0.255; animal, F(1, 46)00.790, p00.379; action, F(1, 46)0
1.541, p 00.221]. Thus, reaction time does not explain
between-groups differences in verbal fluency measures.
Memory and Learning
Patients scored significantly worse than controls on imme-
diate in the Logical Memory subtest. Although they also
scored worse on the delayed recall, there were no significant
differences between groups on the retention percentage and
the recognition trial of this subtest. Significant differences
between patients and controls were also found on cued short
delay recall in California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT). No
significant differences were found between groups on visual
memory measures (Table 6).
Table 5 Performance by non-dysarthric patients and normal controls
in verbal fluency measures
FRDA (n021) Controls (n031)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Since the participants had a lower performance than the
FAS 26.24 (8.92) 37.87 (7.71) 0.0001ab
Animal 19.95 (5.14) 23.77 (4.18) 0.005ab
Action 14.14 (4.28) 20.23 (5.45) 0.0001ab
a
Significance level of α/300.0160
b
Significant differences according to Bonferroni-adjusted α values
(α/n)
839
Visuoperceptual, Visuospatial, and Visuoconstructive
Abilities
As shown in Table 7, FRDA patient scores were significantly
lower than the controls only in FRT. In addition, there was no
significant correlation between the FRT score and the presence
of oculomotor disturbances assessed by the Appollonio
Clinical Rating Scale (r00.128, p00.838).
In the Block Design subtest, we found significant
between-groups differences on both standard and extended
time conditions (Table 8). As suggested by Lezak et al. [51],
we grouped trials in easy and complex designs and found
that FRDA patients had significantly poorer performance
than controls in the complex but not the easy designs
(Table 8). Significant between-groups differences were
also found on the baseline motor task administered.
Moreover, performance in this control task correlated
with accuracy in total (r0−0.568, p<0.0001) and complex
designs (r0−0.573, p<0.0001). Therefore, we performed
subsequent ANCOVA analyses. Nonetheless, participants’
performance in control designs was not a significant covariant
in the analyses performed [total extended time, F(1, 49)0
0.766, p00.386; complex extended time, F(1, 49)00.858,
p00.359]. Neither was FRDA patients’ performance in
the complex designs correlated with their performance
in FRT (total, r00.498, p00.070; complex designs, r00.509,
p00.063).
Language
We conducted a repeated measures analysis in order to
analyze both differences between groups and the effect of
the naming category (noun vs. action) on participants’ per-
formance in naming tasks. There was a significant effect of
the between-subjects variable group [F(1, 57)06.930, p0
0.011)]. We did not find a significant effect of the within-
subjects variable naming category [F(1, 57)03.943, p0
0.052] but the interaction between both independent varia-
bles was significant [F(1, 57)04.901, p00.031]. As shown
in Fig. 1, the controls performed similarly in every naming
task but patients showed a significantly higher performance
in noun compared to action naming. In addition, FRDA
patients and controls did not significantly differ in noun
naming, but in action naming, the controls exhibited a
superior performance to that of the patients (Fig. 1).
controls in FRT, we studied the relationship between partic-
ipants’ performances on FRT and both naming tasks. We did
not find a significant relationship between FRT and these
naming tasks (nouns, r00.226, p00.094; actions, r00.229,
p00.089).
A repeated measures analysis of variance was also per-
formed to analyze participant performance in the anaphora
840 Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844

Table 6 Performance by FRDA

patients and normal controls in FRDA (n026) Controls (n031) p
memory and learning measures Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Logical memory (immediate recall) 37.19 (12.77) 46.87 (9.45) 0.002be

CVLT California Verbal Logical memory (delayed recall) 24.00 (9.57) 29.94 (7.66) 0.012be
Learning Test Logical memory (retention percentage) 83.37 (14.53) 87.49 (12.38) 0.253b
a
10/36: 10/36 Spatial Recall Test Logical memory (recognition) 24.65 (4.80) 27.10 (2.43) 0.024b
b
Significance level of CVLT (total learning score) 56.35 (9.55) 61.48 (7.51) 0.068c
α/400.0125
CVLT (free short delay) 11.88 (3.62) 13.90 (1.95) 0.046c
c
Significance level of
CVLT (cued short delay) 12.35 (2.69) 14.48 (1.40) 0.006ce
α/600.0083
d CVLT (free long delay) 12.59 (3.92) 14.55 (1.66) 0.064c
Significance level of
α/200.025 CVLT (cued long delay) 13.06 (3.29) 14.72 (1.53) 0.063c
e
Significant differences CVLT (recognition) 15.35 (1.06) 15.66 (0.67) 0.300c
according to 10/36 (total learning score)a 37.45 (6.84) 41.73 (6.20) 0.041d
Bonferroni-adjusted α 10/36 (delayed recall)a 8.45 (1.70) 9.41 (1.05) 0.038d
values (α/n)

comprehension task. There was a significant effect of the Discussion

within-subjects variable anaphora ambiguity [F(1, 56)0
30.908, p<0.0001], so non-ambiguous anaphora is easier This study examined neuropsychological performance of
to understand than ambiguous ones, but we did not find a FRDA patients with genetic confirmation of diagnosis in a
significant effect of the between-subjects variable group [F wide range of cognitive domains. Results demonstrated
(1, 56)01.338, p00.252]. The interaction between the two impairments in several of these domains.
independent variables was not significant [F(1, 56)00.080, Patients exhibited slowing in simple and choice reaction
p00.778]. time tasks, not only in motor time but also in decision time,
suggesting a reduction of the speed of cognitive information
Cognitive Performance and Depression processing in addition to motor slowing. No attentional
dysfunction was observed. As expected, patients and con-
Patients reported a significantly higher BDI score than con- trols showed a lower number of correct responses in the
trols (Table 1). In order to statistically control for the effect second half of CPT-IP, with this poorer performance similar
of depression on cognitive performance, we conducted between both groups, which suggests that sustained atten-
ANCOVA. Including participant’s scores on the BDI as a tion is preserved. FRDA patients produced less correct
covariate, we reanalyzed group differences in all the tasks responses in the Stroop Test not only in the interference
where significant between-groups differences have been condition (where participants are required to name the ink
reported in the above paragraphs.
Depression had a significant effect as a covariate only on
Table 8 Performance (accuracy) by FRDA patients and normal con-
the immediate recall of logical memory [F(1, 54)011.749, trols on block design WAIS’ subtest
p00.001] and cued short delay in CVLT [F(1, 43)06.406,
p00.015]. Nonetheless, depression did not account for all FRDA Controls p
(n022) (n031)
the variance on these measures and significant between- Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
groups difference remained [logical memory, F(1, 54)0
4.676, p00.035; CVLT, F(1, 43)07.036, p00.011]. Block design test (total on st) 43.18 (9.45) 52.55 (4.20) 0.0001ac
Block design test (total on et) 47.18 (8.99) 54.19 (3.48) 0.002ac
Table 7 Performance by FRDA patients and normal controls on Easy designs (on st) 16.30 (1.66) 17.00 (0.00) 0.057ab
visuperceptual and visuospatial tasks Easy designs (on et) 16.78 (0.74) 17.00 (0.00) 0.171ab
FRDA (n026) Controls (n031) p Complex designs (on st) 32.65 (8.80) 41.90 (5.82) 0.0001ac
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Complex designs (on et) 38.00 (7.18) 44.30 (5.57) 0.002ac
Control designs (time in seconds) 42.26 (15.48) 14.59 (3.62) 0.0001ac
FRT (total score) 22.15 (2.44) 24.10 (1.83) 0.001a
JLOT (total score) 13.23 (1.94) 14.03 (1.14) 0.058 st standard time, et extended time
Minnesota Test (total score) 7.94 (2.64) 9.33 (2.01) 0.051
a
Significance level of α/700.0071
b
t test
FRT facial recognition test, JLOT Judgment of Line Orientation Test c
Significant differences according to Bonferroni-adjusted α values
a
Significant differences (α/n)
Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844
Fig. 1 Performance by FRDA patients and normal controls on nouns
and actions naming tasks
color instead of reading the word printed) but also in the
reading and color naming conditions. Moreover, when in-
terference indices were calculated and groups were compared,
no significant differences were found between them. Thus,
impaired performance on Stroop trials might be interpreted as
the result of reduced processing speed or dysarthric speech
rather than due to a selective attention deficit.
FRDA patients and controls performed similarly in
WCST. However, patients showed poor performance in the
similarities test, indicating verbal concept formation prob-
lems. Although this result could be attributed to a global
intellectual deficit, FRDA patients did not differ from the
controls in their IQ estimated from the Information subtest
scores. Therefore, this result seems to be a deficit circumscribed
to verbal conceptual thinking.
Patients showed a diminished verbal fluency perfor-
mance at the three modalities assessed. Although verbal
fluency tasks are good measures of executive functioning,
performance can also be affected by articulatory problems
and slowed processing speed. Regarding the first confound-
ing factor, the two different approaches followed converged
in showing significant differences between FRDA patients
and controls, even after dysarthria effects were controlled.
Regarding the second one, processing speed was not a
significant covariant when ANCOVA analyses were per-
formed. Taking into account these results, it could be con-
sidered that FRDA patients showed a primary verbal fluency
deficit that could not be explained by either dysarthria or a
generalized slowing.
In regards to memory, FRDA patients showed poor per-
formance on immediate and delayed recall of prose texts.
However, since nonsignificant differences were found be-
tween patients and controls in the retention percentage,
differences observed in delayed recall seem to be better
explained by previous poor acquisition. The results on
CVLT showed that patients preserved the ability to learn
lists of words but presented difficulties in cued delayed
recall. In this last trial, the examiner asks the subject to
recall items by each of the categories of the word list (tools,
fruits, spices, and clothes). The impaired performance on
cued recall suggests that patients failed to benefit from this
841
cueing, indicating difficulties in the use of semantic associ-
ations as a strategy to retrieve stored information. Visual
learning and memory, as assessed by 10/36 Spatial Recall
test, is preserved in FRDA patients.
Comparable performances of patients and normal con-
trols on JLOT and Minnesota Test were obtained, suggesting
unimpaired visuospatial functioning in FRDA. On the con-
trary, patients showed poorer performance than controls on
FRT. The lack of a significant correlation between FRT and
ocular motor scores and the fact that other tasks involving
visual analysis are correctly performed, suggest that ocular
motion impairment is not playing a determinant role in FRT
impairment. Patients also showed a poor performance on
block design. The interpretation of block design results in
cerebellar ataxia (as in any other movement disorder) is
always complicated. We have designed an assessment pro-
cedure (including baseline motor trials, softening time
restrictions, and eliminating time credits) and performed
different statistical analysis to address this issue and to try
to clarify the interpretation of results. So, although we did
not give time credits and increased the time for the task
execution by an extra minute, FRDA patients showed im-
paired performance in the block design. Therefore, FRDA
deficits in this task cannot be solely explained by the speed
requirements. In addition, administering a baseline motor/
manipulative task allowed us to show that the motor/manip-
ulative component does not account for the poorer perfor-
mance of patients in the block design. Thirdly, we
distinguished between easy and complex design in terms
of their visuoperceptive–visuoconstructive complexity, and
patients and controls only differed significantly in those
more complex designs. Finally, given the visuoperceptive
difficulties assessed with FRT, we studied the possible rela-
tionship between this impairment and performance in the
block design task. There was no significant relationship
between both variables. Therefore, after following the pro-
cedure depicted above, it seems that the impaired FRDA
patient performance in block design is not due to motor
slowness, coordination, nor visuoperceptive deficits. More-
over, the fact that significant differences appear only in
complex designs suggests an impairment of the components
related to structuring and organizing the materials and planning
the visuoconstructive task.
With respect to language, our assessment protocol includes
a naming task where participants are required to name both
nouns and actions and an anaphora comprehension task.
FRDA patients and controls did not differ significantly in
nouns but they did in action naming. In addition, while the
performance of the control group is comparable between both
naming conditions, patients showed a significantly lower per-
formance in action compared to noun naming. These FRDA
patients’ difficulties in naming by visual confrontation of
pictorial stimuli are not related to visuoperceptive deficits.
842
Regarding the comprehension task, patients solved correctly
both non-ambiguous and ambiguous anaphora to comprehend
the meaning of the sentences presented.
In sum, FRDA patients showed slowed processing speed,
impaired concept formation and verbal fluency, deficits in
acquisition of verbal information and use of semantic strate-
gies in retrieval, visuoperceptive and visuoconstructive prob-
lems, and poor action naming. Attentional functions, working
memory, visual memory, and language comprehension are
preserved.
In general, the cognitive deficits observed in the present
study are in line with those observed in previous studies about
cognitive performance in genetically confirmed FRDA
patients. Impaired information processing speed is a consis-
tent result in the scarce cognitive research on FRDA [20, 21,
24]. Our results are also concordant with reports regarding
impairment in concept formation, verbal fluency, and visuo-
perceptive and visuoconstructive functions [20, 24]. In addi-
tion, the procedures followed in our study allowed us to
explore more deeply explanations for task results with a
difficult interpretation such as verbal fluency or visuocon-
structive skills. Regarding declarative memory, the only study
that has examined memory performance in FRDA reported a
poorer overall performance (memory quotient) but did not
report differences between FRDA patients and control partic-
ipants in specific memory tasks [24]. Action naming has not
been studied to date, but the preservation of noun naming is in
line with results obtained by Mantovan et al. [24].
On the other hand, the preservation of working memory
and attention is partially discrepant with results obtained in
previous studies. Impairment in verbal working memory, as
assessed by digit tasks, was reported by Mantovan et al. [24],
but in that study, patients presented an average IQ lower than
controls and 2 of 13 patients had an IQ below normal average.
Attention is a complex function that consists of different
subsystems that perform different but interrelated functions
[52]. In the present study, we focused on two of these sub-
systems: selective attention and sustained attention. Selective
attention, conceptualized as the capacity to select relevant
stimuli and inhibit irrelevant ones, was assessed with the
Stroop Test. In agreement with Corben et al. [21], FRDA
patients were not impaired. Mantovan et al. [24] reported a
different result. However, they used a modification of the
Stroop paradigm that does not actually examine selective
attention but the perception of the consistency or inconsisten-
cy between stimuli features. Sustained attention, the ability to
self-sustain attention in the absence of external manipulators
of attention such as novelty, was assessed with a paradigm of
CPT-IP. FRDA patients showed a preserved performance in
this task. To our knowledge, no other study has used a CPT
paradigm to assess sustained attention in FRDA before.
Klopper et al. [22] reported sustained attention deficit in
this clinical population based on their impaired performance
Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844
in the Test of Everyday Attention [23]. Nonetheless, the tasks
included in Klopper’s work have an important switching
attention component [53, 54] or a considerable working mem-
ory load. In fact, the only task included considered to be a pure
sustained attention measure is the elevator counting condition
[53–56] where FRDA patients had a preserved performance.
Therefore, in our opinion, the ability to self-sustain attention is
not a characteristic deficit of FRDA but difficulties might arise
in more complex tasks where other cognitive processes (work-
ing memory, flexibility, switching, etc.) are also involved.
Impairment observed in conceptual thinking and verbal
fluency is indicative of deficits in prefrontal functions, at least
in its executive component. The characteristics of other deficits
showed by FRDA patients, in the present study, also suggest an
interpretation in terms of executive dysfunction. Whereas
patients showed a good performance in immediate recall of
the words list of the CVLT, they were impaired on the imme-
diate recall of texts. This suggests that difficulties in text recall
may be due to an inappropriate use of organizing strategies for
encoding the abundant information contained in the texts. In
addition, problems with the proper use of semantic strategies to
retrieve a list of words seem also to be the cause of the poor
performance in CVLT delayed cued recall. On the other hand,
visuoperceptive and visuoconstructional impairments are in-
dicative of a dysfunction in right temporo-parietal systems [42,
51]. In addition, the fact that poor performance in block
designs was observed only in more complex designs points
to a difficulty in self-generating strategies for problem solving
and a lack of the flexibility needed to perceive components of a
gestalt and then integrate them as a particular block arrange-
ment. All these results are indicative of impairments in the
more executive components of these different tasks. In agree-
ment with this, results in naming tasks indicate that patients
have difficulties only in action naming, a task that has been
especially associated with frontal lobe functioning [57–59].
There is converging evidence from anatomical, physio-
logical, and clinical approaches to recognize the cerebellum
as a critical component of the distributed neural circuits
subserving cognition [60]. Inputs to the cerebellum arise
from multiple cortical areas, such as the frontal, parietal,
and temporal lobes. Outputs from the deep cerebellar nuclei
project to a diverse set of thalamic nuclei and, in turn, these
nuclei project to cortical areas other than the motor cortex
[1, 61, 62]. Particularly, prefrontal and parietal areas are
cortical targets of cerebello–thalamo–cortical pathway from
the dentate nucleus [63–65]. This deep cerebellar nucleus is,
precisely, the one especially affected in FRDA, showing
increased iron and severe neuronal degeneration. Thus, the
deficits shown by FRDA patients may relate to the disruption of
cerebro-cerebellar circuits, especially those linking cerebellum
with prefrontal and parieto-temporal cortex.
Another explanation for these deficits is that they are
caused by a primary cerebral damage. Similarly to the neurons
Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844
of the dorsal root ganglia, spinal cord, or dentate nucleus,
other neural systems may be affected by the frataxin deficien-
cy, although in a subtler way [24]. There are some neuropath-
ological reports of atrophy of cerebral gyri, but these changes
were considered as secondary to hypoxia resulting from epi-
sodes of heart failure [66, 67]. Lamarche [68] examined
postmortem material from six FRDA cases and he found no
neuropathological changes in cerebral cortex. Neuroimaging
studies of FRDA with genetic diagnosis have reported mild
white matter anomalies in cerebral hemispheres, but volume
loss in gray matter has not been observed [69–71]. Thus, while
the possibility of a primary cortical dysfunction is interesting,
further studies are needed to support this interpretation.
Conclusions
The findings of the present study demonstrate mild cognitive
impairments in a large sample (n036) of patients with FRDA
genetically confirmed. Impairments were observed in process-
ing speed, conceptual thinking, verbal fluency, acquisition of
verbal information, use of semantic strategies in retrieval,
visuoperceptive and visuoconstructive functions, and action
naming. These deficits cannot be attributed to motor impair-
ment or depressed mood. Taken together, these results point to
a dysfunction of prefrontal and temporo-parietal systems that
may be caused by the affectation of the cerebro-cerebellar
circuits proposed as the anatomical substrate of the
cerebellum’s involvement in cognition.
Acknowledgments The authors thank Dr. Berciano (Hospital Marques
de Valdecillas, Santander) and Dr. Arpa (Hospital La Paz, Madrid) for
providing access to patients and for their helpful assistance. They also
thank Margaret Guillon for linguistic review of the manuscript. This
research has been partially supported by a research grant from Ministerio
de Ciencia e Innovacion (PSI2011-24665) and Proyecto Estructurante
Neurocog, financed by the ACIISI and cofinanced by FEDER funds and
the University of La Laguna.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no competing
personal or financial interests.
References
1. Schmahmann JD. An emerging concept: the cerebellar contribution
to higher function. Arch Neurol. 1991;48(11):1178–87.
2. Leiner HC, Leiner AL, Dow RS. Cognitive and language functions
of the human cerebellum. Trends Neurosci. 1993;16(11):444–7.
3. Wollmann T, Barroso J, Monton FI, Nieto A. Neuropsychological
test performance of patients with Friedreich’s ataxia. J Clin Exp
Neuropsychol. 2002;24(5):677–86.
4. Strick PL, Dum RP, Fiez JA. Cerebellum and nonmotor function.
Ann Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:413–34.
5. Timmann D, Daum I. Cerebellar contributions to cognitive functions:
a progress report after two decades of research. Cerebellum. 2007;6
(3):159–62.
843
6. Bellebaum C, Daum I. Cerebellar involvement in executive control.
Cerebellum. 2007;6(3):184–92.
7. Pandolfo M. Friedreich ataxia: detection of GAA repeat expansions
and frataxin point mutations. Methods Mol Med. 2006;126:197–216.
8. Dürr A, Cossee M, Agid Y, Campuzano V, Mignard C, Penet C, et
al. Clinical and genetic abnormalities in patients with Friedreich’s
ataxia. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(16):1169–75.
9. Pandolfo M. Frataxin deficiency and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Mitochondrion. 2002;2(1–2):87–93.
10. Waldvogel D, Van Gelderen P, Hallett M. Increased iron in the
dentate nucleus of patients with Friedreich’s ataxia. Ann Neurol.
1999;46(1):123–5.
11. Bidichandani SI, Ashizawa T, Patel PI. The GAA triplet-repeat
expansion in Friedreich ataxia interferes with transcription and
may be associated with an unusual DNA structure. Am J Hum
Genet. 1998;62(1):111–21.
12. Campuzano V, Montermini L, Molto MD, Pianese L, Cossee M,
Cavalcanti F, et al. Friedreich’s ataxia: autosomal recessive disease
caused by an intronic GAA triplet repeat expansion. Science.
1996;271(5254):1423–7.
13. Berciano J, Infante J, Mateo I. Ataxias y paraplejías hereditarias:
revisión clinicogenética. Neurologia. 2002;17(1):40–51.
14. Wollmann T, Nieto-Barco A, Monton-Alvarez F, Barroso-Ribal J.
Friedreich’s ataxia: analysis of magnetic resonance imaging
parameters and their correlates with cognitive and motor slowing.
Rev Neurol. 2004;38(3):217–22.
15. Habas C. Functional imaging of the deep cerebellar nuclei: a
review. Cerebellum. 2010;9(1):22–8.
16. Fehrenbach R, Wallesch C. Neuropsychological findings in
Friedreich’s ataxia. Arch Neurol. 1984;41:306–8.
17. Hart R, Kwentus J, Leshner R. Information processing speed in
Friedreich’s ataxia. Ann Neurol. 1985;17(6):612–4.
18. Botez-Marquard T, Botez MI. Cognitive behavior in heredodege-
nerative ataxias. Eur Neurol. 1993;33(5):351–7.
19. White M, Lalonde R, Botez-Marquard T. Neuropsychologic and
neuropsychiatric characteristics of patients with Freidreich’s ataxia.
Acta Neurol Scand. 2000;102(4):222–6.
20. De Nobrega ER, Nieto A, Barroso JE, Monton F. Differential
impairment in semantic, phonemic, and action fluency perfor-
mance in Friedreich’s ataxia: possible evidence of prefrontal dys-
function. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2007;13(06):944–52.
21. Corben LA, Delatycki MB, Bradshaw JL, Horne MK, Fahey MC,
Churchyard AJ, et al. Impairment in motor reprogramming in
Friedreich ataxia reflecting possible cerebellar dysfunction. J Neurol.
2010;257(5):782–91.
22. Klopper F, Delatycki MB, Corben LA, Bradshaw JL, Rance G,
Georgiou-Karistianis N. The test of everyday attention reveals
significant sustained volitional attention and working memory
deficits in friedreich ataxia. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2011;17
(1):196–200.
23. Robertson IH, Ward A, Ridgeway V, Nimmo-Smith I. The test of
everyday attention: TEA. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test
Co.; 1994.
24. Mantovan M, Martinuzzi A, Squarzanti F, Bolla A, Silvestri I,
Liessi G, et al. Exploring mental status in Friedreich’s ataxia: a
combined neuropsychological, behavioral and neuroimaging
study. Eur J Neurol. 2006;13(8):827–35.
25. Harding A. Friedreich’s ataxia: a clinical and genetic study of 90
families with an analysis of early diagnostic criteria and intrafamilial
clustering of clinical features. Brain. 1981;104(3):589–620.
26. Van Swieten J, Koudstaal P, Visser M, Schouten H, Van Gijn J.
Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke
patients. Stroke. 1988;19(5):604–7.
27. Nobile–Orazio E, Baldini L, Barbieri S. Treatment of patients with
neuropathy and anti–MAG IgM M–proteins. Ann Neurol. 1988;24
(1):93–7.
844
28. Appollonio I, Grafman J, Schwartz V. Memory in patients with
cerebellar degeneration. 1993;43:1536–44.
29. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A
practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the
clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98.
30. Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale-administration and
scoring manual. 3rd ed. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation;
1997.
31. Beck A, Ward C, Mendelson M, et al. An inventory for measuring
depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961;4:561–71.
32. Schuhfried G. Vienna reaction unit. Manual. Vienna: Schuhfried
Ges.m.b.H; 1992.
33. Erlenmeyer-Kimling L, Cornblatt BA. A summary of attentional
findings in the New York high-risk project. J Psychiatr Res.
1992;26(4):405–26.
34. Golden C. Stroop color and word test: a manual for clinical and
experimental uses. Chicago: Stoelting Company; 1978.
35. Wechsler D. Wechsler memory scale—third edition. Technical
manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation; 1997.
36. Heaton R. A manual for the Wisconsin card sorting test. Odessa:
Psychological Assessment Resources; 1981.
37. Benton A, Hamsher K, Sivan A. Multilingual aphasia examination.
2nd ed. Iowa: University of Iowa; 1989.
38. Piatt AL, Fields JA, Paolo AM, Tröster AI. Action (verb naming)
fluency as an executive function measure: convergent and divergent
evidence of validity. Neuropsychologia. 1999;37(13):1499–503.
39. Delis D, Kramer J, Kaplan E, Ober B. California verbal learning
test: adult version manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation;
1987.
40. Benedet MJ, Alejandre MA. TAVEC: test de Aprendizaje Verbal
España-Complutense. Manual. Madrid: TEA ediciones; 1998.
41. Rao SM, Leo GJ, Bernardin L, Unverzagt F. Cognitive dysfunction
in multiple sclerosis: I. Frequency, patterns, and prediction. Neu-
rology. 1991;41(5):685–91.
42. Benton A, Hamsher S, Varney O, Spreen N. Contributions to
neuropsychological assessment: a clinical manual. New York:
Oxford University Press; 1983.
43. Quasha WH, Likert R. The revised Minnesota paper form board
test. J Educ Psychol. 1937;28(3):197–204.
44. Alameda J, Cuetos F. Diccionario de Frecuencia de las unidades
lingüísticas del catellano (Vols. I y II). Oviedo: Servicio de
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Oviedo; 1995.
45. Cuetos F, Alija M. Normative data and naming times for action
pictures. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003;35(1):168–77.
46. Cuetos F, Ellis A, Alvarez B. Naming times for the Snodgrass and
Vanderwart pictures in Spanish. Behav Res Methods Instrum
Comput. 1999;31(4):650–8.
47. IPNP. The International Picture Naming Project [internet]. 2011.
Available at: http://crl.ucsd.edu/∼aszekely/ipnp/1database.html.
Accessed 30 June 2011.
48. Druks J, Masterson J. An object and action naming battery. Hove:
Psychology Press; 1999.
49. Schneider W, Eschman A, Zuccolotto A. E-Prime user’s guide.
Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.; 2002.
50. Camacho J. Análisis multivariado con spss/pc+. Barcelona: EUB;
1995.
51. Lezak M, Howieson D, Loring D. Neuropsychological assessment.
4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.
52. Posner MI, Petersen SE. The attention system of the human brain.
Ann Rev Neurosci. 1990;13:25–42.
Cerebellum (2012) 11:834–844
53. Chan RCK, Lai M, Robertson IH. Latent structure of the Test of
Everyday Attention in a non-clinical Chinese sample. Arch Clin
Neuropsychol. 2006;21(5):477–85.
54. Bate AJ, Mathias JL, Crawford JR. Performance on the Test of
Everyday Attention and standard tests of attention following severe
traumatic brain injury. Clin Neuropsychol. 2001;15(3):405–22.
55. Robertson IH, Ward T, Ridgeway V, Nimmo-Smith I. The structure
of normal human attention: the test of everyday attention. J Int
Neuropsychol Soc. 1996;2(06):525–34.
56. Chan R, Lee T, Hoosain R. Application of the test of everday
attention in Hong Kong Chinese: a factor structure study. Arch
Clin Neuropsychol. 1999;14(8):715–6.
57. Damasio AR, Tranel D. Nouns and verbs are retrieved with dif-
ferently distributed neural systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
1993;90(11):4957–60.
58. Daniele A, Giustolisi L, Silveri MC, Colosimo C, Gainotti G.
Evidence for a possible neuroanatomical basis for lexical process-
ing of nouns and verbs. Neuropsychologia. 1994;32(11):1325–41.
59. Perani D, Cappa SF, Schnur T, Tettamanti M, Collina S, Rosa MM,
et al. The neural correlates of verb and noun processing. A PET
study. Brain J Neurol. 1999;122:12337–44.
60. Schmahmann JD. The role of the cerebellum in cognition and
emotion: personal reflections since 1982 on the dysmetria of
thought hypothesis, and its historical evolution from theory to
therapy. Neuropsychol Rev. 2010;20(3):236–60.
61. Schmahmann JD, Pandya DN. Prefrontal cortex projections to the
basilar pons in rhesus monkey: implications for the cerebellar
contribution to higher function. Neurosci Lett. 1995;199(3):175–8.
62. Allen G, McColl R, Barnard H, Ringe WK, Fleckenstein J, Cullum
CM. Magnetic resonance imaging of cerebellar-prefrontal and
cerebellar-parietal functional connectivity. Neuroimage. 2005;28
(1):39–48.
63. Middleton FA, Strick PL. Dentate output channels: motor and
cognitive components. Prog Brain Res. 1997;114:553–66.
64. Clower DM, West RA, Lynch JC, Strick PL. The inferior parietal
lobule is the target of output from the superior colliculus, hippo-
campus, and cerebellum. J Neurosci. 2001;21(16):6283–91.
65. Prevosto V, Graf W, Ugolini G. Cerebellar inputs to intraparietal
cortex areas LIP and MIP: functional frameworks for adaptive
control of eye movements, reaching, and arm/eye/head movement
coordination. Cereb Cortex. 2010;20(1):214–28.
66. Oppenheimer D. Brain lesions in Friedreich’s ataxia. Can J Neurol Sci
Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques. 1979;6(2):173–6.
67. Oppenheimer D, Esiri M. Diseases of the basal ganglia, cerebellum
and motor neurons. In: Duchen J, Adams L, editors. Greenfield’s
neuropathology. London: Edward Arnold; 1976. p. 608–51.
68. Lamarche J, Lemieux B, Lieu H. The neuropathology of “typical”
Friedreich’s ataxia in Quebec. Can J Neurol Sci Le J Can Sci
Neurol. 1984;11(4 Suppl):592–600.
69. França MC, D’Abreu A, Yasuda CL, Bonadia LC, Santos da Silva
M, Nucci A, et al. A combined voxel-based morphometry and 1 H-
MRS study in patients with Friedreich’s ataxia. J Neurol. 2009;256
(7):1114–20.
70. Della Nave R, Ginestroni A, Tessa C, Salvatore E, Bartolomei I,
Salvi F, et al. Brain white matter tracts degeneration in Friedreich
ataxia. An in vivo MRI study using tract-based spatial statistics
and voxel-based morphometry. Neuroimage. 2008;40(1):19–25.
71. Della Nave R, Ginestroni A, Giannelli M, Tessa C, Salvatore E,
Salvi F, et al. Brain structural damage in Friedreich’s ataxia. J
Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(1):82–5.