Processing speed in temporal lobe epilepsy. A scoping review.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Impaired processing speed (PS) can affect patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). However, it is usually considered a nonspecific clinical feature and is not measured, but this raises lexical and methodological problems. This review aims to evaluate the existing terminology and assessment methods of PS in patients with TLE. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted based on the extended guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. The electronic literature search was conducted on Medline-PubMed, American Psychological Association-PsycINFO, Elton Bryson Stephens Company, and Google Scholar, using the keywords "temporal lobe epilepsy" and "speed" or "slowing" plus "processing," "cognitive," "psychomotor," or "mental." Peer-reviewed articles published before December 2022 were analyzed if they were in English, including patients older than 14 years and at least one neuropsychological measure, reported original research focused on PS and had the selected keywords in the title, keywords, and abstract. RESULTS: Seven articles published between December 2004 and September 2021 were selected. The terms "processing speed," "psychomotor speed," and "information processing speed," based on similar theoretical constructs, were the most frequently used. Assessment methods included non-computerized or paper-and-pencil tests (WAIS-III Digit Symbol and Symbol Search subtests, Purdue Pegboard and Grooved Pegboard Tests, Trail Making Test and Stroop Color-Word Test) and computerized tests (Sternberg Memory Scanning Test, Pattern Comparison Processing Speed, Computerized Visual Searching). In some studies, impairment was associated with white and gray matter damage in the brain, independent of clinical and treatment variables. CONCLUSION: Clinical research on TLE has focused inconsistently on PS. Different evaluation terms and methods have been used while referring to similar theoretical constructs. These findings highlight a gap between the clinical importance of PS and its assessment. Studies are needed to share terms and tools among clinical centers and clarify the position of PS in the TLE phenotype.