Rebuttal to Bigler's response to our commentary on "The lesion(s) in traumatic brain injury": Let's stick to science

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text


In response to an article by E. Bigler (see record 2001-00691-001) we (along with other authors) provided a commentary (Lees-Haley, Green, Rohling, Fox, & Allen; see record 2003-07548-003) that addressed significant flaws in this work. In turn, Dr. Bigler (see record 200307548-004) inferred malice and responded in an adversarial manner, which prompted this brief rejoinder. Dr. Bigler continues to ignore certain basic findings in head injury research. For example, he unwittingly equates subjective complaints in MTBI with acquired deficits--even in the absence of positive MR findings. Dr. Bigler confuses measured cognitive deficits with brain abnormality, naively assuming that any apparent degradation produces actual functional deficits. Dr. Bigler appears unaware within the precision afforded by our current assessment technology that neuropsychological "deficits" in MTBI can be explained entirely by performance on symptom validity tests (Green, Rohling, Lees-Haley, & Allen, 2001) and that this all too common "impairment" implausibly dwarfs that of patients with genuine severe head injuries. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).




Fox, D. D., & Allen, L. M. (2003). Rebuttal to Bigler’s response to our commentary on “The lesion(s) in traumatic brain injury”: Let’s stick to science. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. Elsevier Ltd.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free