Naming is typically assessed with visual naming tasks, yet, some patients with genuine word-finding difficulty (evident in auditorily based discourse) show minimal difficulty on such measures. Evidence from cortical mapping, brain imaging and neuropsychological studies suggests that auditory naming measures might provide more relevant or at least, complementary information. We developed comparable auditory and visual naming tests and present normative data for accuracy, response time, and tip-of-the-tongue responses based on 100 controls. Test validity was supported by findings that left temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) patients (i.e., a population with expected naming difficulty) performed more poorly on auditory but not visual naming compared to right TLE patients (i.e., a population without expected naming difficulty). Internal and test–retest reliability coefficients were reasonable. Finally, test utility was assessed on an individual basis, and auditory but not visual naming performance predicted impairment. (JINS, 2003, 9, 479–489.)

We were pleased by Dr. Bruyer's opinion that our paper is likely to become “influential shortly” and welcome this opportunity to respond to his thoughtful comments and cautions regarding the manuscript. We certainly agree with his view that novel manuscripts and approaches must be examined carefully and appreciate his careful examination of our manuscript. Dr. Bruyer raises three qualifications related to our analyses and interpretation of the data.

Automatic and effortful information processing in depressed patients was investigated by a visual search paradigm, in order to examine dysfunctional effortful processing in depressed patients. Twenty-one patients with major depression, according to the DSM–IV, and with a moderate depression measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale score at >18 participated in the study. The healthy control group was matched for age, gender, and level of education. Half of the trials involved only one type of distractor, and the other half of the trials involved two types of distractors being presented. The results show that the performance of the depressed patients was equal to the control group when the target was easily recognized with only one type of distractor present. However, when target detection required a more difficult and complex attentive search strategy, effortful information processing, the depressed patients needed longer visual search time compared to the controls. Depressed patients seem to have impaired performance on effortful but not automatic information processing. (JINS, 2003, 9, 954–959.)

The goal of this textbook, stated in the preface, is for students to “have access to an account of neuropsychology that was at once clear and in-depth,” and in most respects it achieves this purpose. The book has a total of 15 chapters divided into three parts. Each chapter begins with an outline and ends with a summary. Major terms are printed in bold and defined in a glossary. There is a website for the book. Apparently a test bank is available that includes multiple-choice, fill-in, true–false and essay questions for all chapters.

Earlier findings in patients with a small supratentorial white matter infarct demonstrated subtle impairments of cognition. This is in line with reported difficulties in regaining premorbid level of functioning in daily life activities, even though any physical neurological deficits are no longer present. Either a “bystander effect” of adjoining gray matter or a long distance effect through hypometabolism or other neurochemical changes might underlie these impairments. To find the best explanation, a group of 17 patients with a lacunar infarct in the brainstem was neuropsychologically evaluated and compared with a closely matched control group. The patients demonstrated significantly impaired task performance on a constellation of neuropsychological tasks that was very similar to the findings previously found in patients with a supratentorial lacunar infarct (Boston Naming Test, TEA visual elevator, category fluency, Trailmaking Test). We conclude that a small white-matter infarct may affect cognitive functioning in a nonspecific way independently of its location. (JINS, 2003, 9, 490–494.)