This study was approved by the Austin & Repatriation Research using Human Participants Research Committee. The procedure consisted of one session lasting approximately an hour. Assessments were all performed for the participant's convenience at their homes, and at a convenient time for them. Following the routine clinical neuropsychological assessment at the hospital, patients who were found suitable for the study by the clinician were invited to participate and the "Participant Information Sheet" was sent to them by mail. An appointment was arranged over the phone by the present investigator with those who were interested to participate, and at the beginning of the session the consent forms were signed by the patient and their spouse (See Appendix C). The procedure and the tasks were explained to both the patient and spouse together at the start of the session, and then they were tested separately, begining with the patient.
Object-Space Association Task: the board with the boxes on it was placed in front of the participant, and the five items used were placed next to them (a medicine bottle, a set of keys, a watch, a pen and a pair of glasses). In the acquisition phase, as the participant observed, the items were placed in the boxes. The lids were then closed, and the participant was asked to point out the location of the different items, in no particular order. When the participant had finished recalling the locations, the lids were opened, and the items were put back on the table in front of them. No verbal feedback was given to their performance. The same procedure was then repeated until the participant has correctly pointed out all the items in two consecutive trials (criterion), or up to a maximum of five trials. The items were always placed back into the same boxes, in the same order.
Upon finishing the acquisition phase, the board, with the items inside the same boxes, was put aside so it was not visible and the participant was told that they would be asked again to point out the location of the items after the CADT. A score of one point was given for each correct response. The maximum score for each trial was therefore five.
Clock-Anomalies Detection Task: the cards were placed on the table in front of the participant, a card at a time. The participants were instructed to look at each card and to decide whether the clock looks "like a normal, every-day clock", or whether it was "unusual or problematic". When a clock was judged to be invalid, the participant was asked to explain the basis of their decision. The 20 cards were shown in the same order for all subjects.
Scoring of the CADT: the valid and the invalid clocks were scored separately. For the invalid clocks, one point was given for detection of an anomaly, either without explanation, an incorrect explanation, or an explanation that was limited to the appearance of the clock face rather than the general or conceptual aspects of the anomaly (e.g. "the number 2 should be there, and not here", as an answer to a clock that has only 6 hours on it rather than 12, and the 2 is located were normally the 5 would be located, see Appendix C). Two points were given if the patient pointed out the correct anomaly and offered an explanation that focused on the general or conceptual aspects of the anomaly (e.g. "the clock only has six hours on it rather than 12", as an answer to same clock in the above example). The maximum possible score for the invalid clocks was 30. For the valid clocks, two points were given for correct identification of the clock as valid, one point was given when the patient regarded the clock as valid but expressed dissatisfaction with a particular feature of the clock face that w as not consistent with their personal view of the clock (e.g. "it's normal apart from the fact that it doesn't have enough information on it" as an answer to valid clock 1). No points were given if the patients classified it as invalid. The maximum possible score was 10 points. Inter-rater reliability for the scoring of the CADT was ?= .92.
After completion of the CADT, a delayed recall trial of the OPAT was administered. The board was placed back in front of the subject with the items still inside the boxes, and they were asked to point out the locations of the items once more.