Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): a factor analytic study of a large sample of normal elderly volunteers
Robbins TW, James M, Owen AM, Sahakian BJ, McInnes L, Rabbitt P.. Dementia (Basel, Switzerland), 1994-09-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The CANTAB battery was administered to a large group (n = 787) of elderly volunteers in the age range from 55 to 80 years. This battery, which is based on tests used to identify the neural substrates of learning and memory in non-human primates, has now been extensively used in the assessment of various forms of dementia and also validated on patients with neurosurgical lesions of the frontal and temporal lobes. The tests employed were pattern and spatial recognition, simultaneous and delayed matching to sample, learning of visuospatial paired associates, a matching to sample, reaction time task and a test of spatial working memory.
Key findings
- This battery, which is based on tests used to identify the neural substrates of learning and memory in non-human primates, has now been extensively used in the assessment of various forms of dementia and also validated on patients with neurosurgical lesions of the frontal and temporal lobes.
- The tests employed were pattern and spatial recognition, simultaneous and delayed matching to sample, learning of visuospatial paired associates, a matching to sample, reaction time task and a test of spatial working memory.
- The sample was banded into different IQ bands based on performance on 5 standard tests of intelligence.
- The MMSE was also administered to exclude cases of possible dementia (n = 16) in the normal sample.
Why it matters
This factor analytic study administered the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery to 787 normal elderly volunteers aged 55 to 80. The battery has been used in the assessment of various forms of dementia and validated on patients with neurosurgical lesions of the frontal and temporal lobes.
Study details
- Participants787
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, so that was left out: it earned 53 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia (Basel, Switzerland)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1994 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 787 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 7 / 7 | Cited 1,073 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 4 / 5 | 31.6 citations a year over 34 year(s) since 1994 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 7.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 3 / 6 | Cited by 10 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 3 / 4 | Cited 108 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Patrick Rabbitt: h-index 59 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of Cambridge: institution h-index 1,973 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 7951684) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 53 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 53 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Robbins, T. W., James, M., Owen, A. M., Sahakian, B. J., McInnes, L., & Rabbitt, P. (1994). Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): a factor analytic study of a large sample of normal elderly volunteers. Dementia (Basel, Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.1159/000106735
Vancouver
Robbins TW, James M, Owen AM, Sahakian BJ, McInnes L, Rabbitt P. Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): a factor analytic study of a large sample of normal elderly volunteers. Dementia (Basel, Switzerland). 1994. doi:10.1159/000106735. PMID: 7951684.
BibTeX
@article{robbins1994-7951684,
author = {Robbins, T. W. and James, M. and Owen, A. M. and Sahakian, B. J. and McInnes, L. and Rabbitt, P.},
title = {{Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): a factor analytic study of a large sample of normal elderly volunteers}},
journal = {Dementia (Basel, Switzerland)},
year = {1994},
doi = {10.1159/000106735},
pmid = {7951684},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000106735}
}
Later studies that cite this one
10 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “assessment”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.