Cognitive tests

Interpretation for neurotoxicity? (Workshop summary)

William Slikker, Barbara D. Beck, Deborah A. Cory-Slechta, Merle G. Paule, Wyndham Anger, David Bellinger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The appropriate use and interpretation of cognitive tests presents important challenges to the toxicologist and to the risk assessor. For example, intelligence cannot be measured directly; rather intelligence is quantified indirectly by scoring responses (i.e., behaviors) to specific situations (problems). This workshop, "Cognitive Tests: Interpretation for Neurotoxicity?" provided an overview on the types of cognitive tests available and described approaches by which the validity of such tests can be assessed. Unlike many tools available to the toxicologist, cognitive tests have a particular advantage. Being noninvasive and species-neutral, the same test can be performed in different mammalian species. This enhances one's ability to assess the validity of test results. Criteria for test validity include comparable responses across species as well as similar disruption by the same neurotoxicant across species. Test batteries, such as the Operant Test Battery, have indicated remarkable similarity between monkeys and children with respect to performance of certain tasks involving, for example, short-term memory. Still, there is a need for caution in interpretation of such tests. In particular, cognitive tests, especially when performed in humans, are subject to confounding by a range of factors, including age, gender, and, in particular, education. Moreover, the ability of such tests to reflect intelligence must be considered. Certain aspects of intelligence, such as the ability to plan or carry out specific tasks, are not well reflected by many of the standard tests of cognition. Nonetheless, although still under development, cognitive tests do hold promise for reliably predicting neurotoxicity in humans.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)222-234
Number of pages13
JournalToxicological Sciences
Volume58
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Intelligence
Aptitude
Education
Data storage equipment
Age Factors
Task Performance and Analysis
Short-Term Memory
Reproducibility of Results
Cognition
Haplorhini

Keywords

  • Behavioral neurotoxicology
  • Cognitive tests
  • Metals
  • Neurobehavioral test battery
  • Solvents

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Toxicology

Cite this

Slikker, W., Beck, B. D., Cory-Slechta, D. A., Paule, M. G., Anger, W., & Bellinger, D. (2000). Cognitive tests: Interpretation for neurotoxicity? (Workshop summary). Toxicological Sciences, 58(2), 222-234. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/58.2.222

Cognitive tests : Interpretation for neurotoxicity? (Workshop summary). / Slikker, William; Beck, Barbara D.; Cory-Slechta, Deborah A.; Paule, Merle G.; Anger, Wyndham; Bellinger, David.

In: Toxicological Sciences, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2000, p. 222-234.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Slikker, W, Beck, BD, Cory-Slechta, DA, Paule, MG, Anger, W & Bellinger, D 2000, 'Cognitive tests: Interpretation for neurotoxicity? (Workshop summary)', Toxicological Sciences, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 222-234. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/58.2.222
Slikker, William ; Beck, Barbara D. ; Cory-Slechta, Deborah A. ; Paule, Merle G. ; Anger, Wyndham ; Bellinger, David. / Cognitive tests : Interpretation for neurotoxicity? (Workshop summary). In: Toxicological Sciences. 2000 ; Vol. 58, No. 2. pp. 222-234.
@article{34a94bd9c4864824839671e8545f6b5c,
title = "Cognitive tests: Interpretation for neurotoxicity? (Workshop summary)",
abstract = "The appropriate use and interpretation of cognitive tests presents important challenges to the toxicologist and to the risk assessor. For example, intelligence cannot be measured directly; rather intelligence is quantified indirectly by scoring responses (i.e., behaviors) to specific situations (problems). This workshop, {"}Cognitive Tests: Interpretation for Neurotoxicity?{"} provided an overview on the types of cognitive tests available and described approaches by which the validity of such tests can be assessed. Unlike many tools available to the toxicologist, cognitive tests have a particular advantage. Being noninvasive and species-neutral, the same test can be performed in different mammalian species. This enhances one's ability to assess the validity of test results. Criteria for test validity include comparable responses across species as well as similar disruption by the same neurotoxicant across species. Test batteries, such as the Operant Test Battery, have indicated remarkable similarity between monkeys and children with respect to performance of certain tasks involving, for example, short-term memory. Still, there is a need for caution in interpretation of such tests. In particular, cognitive tests, especially when performed in humans, are subject to confounding by a range of factors, including age, gender, and, in particular, education. Moreover, the ability of such tests to reflect intelligence must be considered. Certain aspects of intelligence, such as the ability to plan or carry out specific tasks, are not well reflected by many of the standard tests of cognition. Nonetheless, although still under development, cognitive tests do hold promise for reliably predicting neurotoxicity in humans.",
keywords = "Behavioral neurotoxicology, Cognitive tests, Metals, Neurobehavioral test battery, Solvents",
author = "William Slikker and Beck, {Barbara D.} and Cory-Slechta, {Deborah A.} and Paule, {Merle G.} and Wyndham Anger and David Bellinger",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1093/toxsci/58.2.222",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "222--234",
journal = "Toxicological Sciences",
issn = "1096-6080",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cognitive tests

T2 - Interpretation for neurotoxicity? (Workshop summary)

AU - Slikker, William

AU - Beck, Barbara D.

AU - Cory-Slechta, Deborah A.

AU - Paule, Merle G.

AU - Anger, Wyndham

AU - Bellinger, David

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - The appropriate use and interpretation of cognitive tests presents important challenges to the toxicologist and to the risk assessor. For example, intelligence cannot be measured directly; rather intelligence is quantified indirectly by scoring responses (i.e., behaviors) to specific situations (problems). This workshop, "Cognitive Tests: Interpretation for Neurotoxicity?" provided an overview on the types of cognitive tests available and described approaches by which the validity of such tests can be assessed. Unlike many tools available to the toxicologist, cognitive tests have a particular advantage. Being noninvasive and species-neutral, the same test can be performed in different mammalian species. This enhances one's ability to assess the validity of test results. Criteria for test validity include comparable responses across species as well as similar disruption by the same neurotoxicant across species. Test batteries, such as the Operant Test Battery, have indicated remarkable similarity between monkeys and children with respect to performance of certain tasks involving, for example, short-term memory. Still, there is a need for caution in interpretation of such tests. In particular, cognitive tests, especially when performed in humans, are subject to confounding by a range of factors, including age, gender, and, in particular, education. Moreover, the ability of such tests to reflect intelligence must be considered. Certain aspects of intelligence, such as the ability to plan or carry out specific tasks, are not well reflected by many of the standard tests of cognition. Nonetheless, although still under development, cognitive tests do hold promise for reliably predicting neurotoxicity in humans.

AB - The appropriate use and interpretation of cognitive tests presents important challenges to the toxicologist and to the risk assessor. For example, intelligence cannot be measured directly; rather intelligence is quantified indirectly by scoring responses (i.e., behaviors) to specific situations (problems). This workshop, "Cognitive Tests: Interpretation for Neurotoxicity?" provided an overview on the types of cognitive tests available and described approaches by which the validity of such tests can be assessed. Unlike many tools available to the toxicologist, cognitive tests have a particular advantage. Being noninvasive and species-neutral, the same test can be performed in different mammalian species. This enhances one's ability to assess the validity of test results. Criteria for test validity include comparable responses across species as well as similar disruption by the same neurotoxicant across species. Test batteries, such as the Operant Test Battery, have indicated remarkable similarity between monkeys and children with respect to performance of certain tasks involving, for example, short-term memory. Still, there is a need for caution in interpretation of such tests. In particular, cognitive tests, especially when performed in humans, are subject to confounding by a range of factors, including age, gender, and, in particular, education. Moreover, the ability of such tests to reflect intelligence must be considered. Certain aspects of intelligence, such as the ability to plan or carry out specific tasks, are not well reflected by many of the standard tests of cognition. Nonetheless, although still under development, cognitive tests do hold promise for reliably predicting neurotoxicity in humans.

KW - Behavioral neurotoxicology

KW - Cognitive tests

KW - Metals

KW - Neurobehavioral test battery

KW - Solvents

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034520348&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034520348&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/toxsci/58.2.222

DO - 10.1093/toxsci/58.2.222

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 222

EP - 234

JO - Toxicological Sciences

JF - Toxicological Sciences

SN - 1096-6080

IS - 2

ER -