Luria's fist-edge-palm test: A small change makes a big difference.

Slight modifications in the instructions or administration of neuropsychological tests could result in noticeable differences in performance. A good example is offered by a test devised by Luria to assess executive functioning in motor planning, the three-step fist-edge-palm (FEP) test, which is still frequently employed in clinical settings and features in several neuropsychological test batteries such as the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB). While Luria described the orientation of the fist as horizontal to the testing desk (hFEP), recent versions of the task indicate the fist should be vertical to the testing desk (vFEP). The current study examined whether administering the hFEP or the vFEP tests results in different performance in healthy people, and whether one version is better than the other at detecting impairments in a patient population. The hFEP proved more challenging for healthy adults than the vFEP, and people with brain damage committed more errors on the hFEP than the vFEP. Both versions correlated with executive measures but also with several other cognitive variables, indicating that the test is not a specific marker of executive functions. Although performance on the FEP is sensitive to articulatory suppression, faster pace, and the number of sequences performed, none of these conditions fully account for the differences between the hFEP and vFEP. The additional demand of the hFEP appears to be due to the less natural (i.e., automatic) orientation of the horizontal fist. In conclusion, a small change in the administration of the test, eluding Luria's instructions, grossly modified its sensitivity. Clinicians and researchers should be wary of modifying instructions or testing procedures without considering the possible consequences of such modifications.