In <35B9158C.3E99 at idt.net> Rob and Stef <rdunca19 at idt.net> writes:
>>F. Frank LeFever wrote:
>>>> Very interesting. Some clarification needed, however. In what way
>>Without wasting your time with an inept written description I couldnt
>>>>> Not sure what you mean by "MRA"--apparently not MRI,
>> because this would surely show asymmetry (even CT would).
>>Iv'e had em all. MRA=magnetic resonance angiography. It details rather
>well the vaculature within the brain. I had only brought it up since
>had proposed O2 as a means of explaining functional brains with prior
>damage. Reling soley n the mra pics you would never know that the
>were waiting to give you a start! ;^)
>>> Might also
>> show sins of MS, at some stages.
I MEANT, of course, "SIGNS" of MS!!
>> am of course curious about the exact PROFILE of cognitive abilities
>> (and possible selective disabilities) in these provocative cases.
>>>> F. LeFever
>> New York Neuropsychology Group
>>The only thing that wasnt clearly above normal was trailmaking.
My curiosity about profile remains. In a high-functioning
individual, all abilities may be normal or above normal, but WITHIN
this range some will be better than others.
NOW you've got me curious about who tested you and what the battery
>explains currant problems but as to why "that" would be my only
>discernable problem I dont know.
Probably you don't have the raw scores, but I'd be interested in
comparing Trails A and Trails B--not in terms of centiles or
whatever, but in terms of actual times recorded (I have seen some
interesting correlates of the B/A ratio), but even A vs. B centile
scores would be of interest (MIGHT give a clue re "current
My neuro, when he finally got the
>reports, was exasperated more than I. I will add that I have had/am
>having problems with visual identification of things I am looking for.
>weird siymptoms to say the least.
> Visual identification problems: = detection? = recognition?
ALSO: are these lifelong or recent problems? If recent, would
suspect MS as basis. In my experience, MS patients often have
"higher order" visual problems--i.e., NOT just optic nerve level,
visual acuity-type problems.
CONCEIVABLY, recent (rather than lifelong) problems could relate
to increae in hydrocephaly beyond what your brain had adjusted
to. If so, procedure neurologist on the head injury unit of my
hospital uses might be worth trying. When normopressure
hydrocephaly and/or shunt failure is suspected, he sometimes
tries a TEMPORARY reduction of pressure, i.e. withdrawal of
a small amount of CSF (c. 50cc??? not sure) via spinal tap. If
some improvement noted, encourages placing of shunt (or revising
old one if one already in place).
Thus my problem of trying to decide whether I should have a shunt or
>not. If I were, I would just get a 3rd ventrculostomy. DAMN the
>torpedos, full speed ahead! ;^) I cant tell where my MS starts and
>hydro ends, symtom wise. So it presents many problems for me. I do
>like the fact that they think I need a shunt but have yet to
>any changes from the before (fine) and the after (suckola) in
>ventricular size. The lesions I have now acrued are in my pons so I
>think it complicates matters even more. I have low lying tonsils and
>the possibility of coning is very real. There is some question of
>whether I have a "tethered" spinal cord. You name it and theyve said
>it. 8*) I would gladly give into any one persons medical opinion...
>they ask me mine, and then hold to much importance in it.
>>No ocular symtimolgy at all. No really "severe" headaches. mystery.
I think higher order visual problems in absence of ocular
symptoms could be possible via either problem--i.e., hydrocephaly
or MS (each in it own way affecting white matter in deep
I have much compassion, having been through a lengthy hospital
siege myself in the past year...
New York Neuropsychology Group