The digit recall task required participants to serially recall lists of digit strings that were set at their own maximum span and read by the examiner at the approximate rate of two per second. Participants performed the tracking and digit recall tasks separately

for a period of 2 min each prior to performing both tasks concurrently for a period of 2 min. A composite NVP-BGJ398 measure of dual-task performance (μ) was calculated according to the formula: μ = (1 − [(Pm + Pt)/2]) × 100 (Baddeley et al., 1997). Here, μ represents the combined change in dual-task performance relative to performance on the constituent tasks, where Pm is the proportional change in memory performance and Pt is the proportional change in tracking. Pm is calculated according to (ps − pd)/ps, where ps is the proportion of digit strings recalled correctly under single task conditions and pd is the proportion of digit strings recalled under dual task. Pt is calculated according to (ts − td)/ts, where ts is the number of boxes crossed under single-task conditions and td is the number of boxes selleck kinase inhibitor crossed under dual-task conditions. Auditory and visual attentional capacities were measured with digit span and spatial

span respectively (see Lezak, Howieson, Bigler, & Tranel, 2012). The TMT (see Lezak et al., 2012) was used to measure divided attention; the elevator counting task from the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA-2; Robertson, Ward, Ridgeway, & Nimmo-Smith, 1994) measured sustained attention; the elevator task with distraction (TEA-3) was deployed to measure selective attention. The ability to maintain and shift mental set was assessed with the Odd-Man-Out test (OMO; Flowers & Roberston, 1985). The mean MCE scores and standard deviations for the digit recall and tracking tasks achieved under single- and dual-task conditions

are displayed in Table 2. To ensure that any differences found between the groups reflect dual-task deficits per se and not inflated single-task differences, we followed Baddeley and colleagues (e.g., Cocchini, Logie, Della Sala, MacPherson, & Baddeley, 2002) and excluded data from participants who scored below 70% accuracy under single-digit recall conditions. Accordingly, data from four TLE patients (three left-sided and one right-sided) was excluded from further analyses. A 2 × 2 ANOVA of digit recall for the remaining participants, treating Group (TLE or control) as a between-subjects factor and condition (single or dual task) as a within-subjects factor did not reveal a main effect of group [F(1, 34) = 3.556, p > .068]. A main effect of condition was found [F(1, 34) = 5.880, p < .021] indicating that a higher proportion of digits were correctly recalled under single-task conditions. The interaction between group and condition did not approach significance [F(1, 34) = 0.501, p > .484].