Clare Kelly1, John J Foxe, Hugh Garavan. 1. School of Psychology and Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To illustrate how our knowledge about normal patterns of experience-induced plasticity can provide insights into the mechanisms of neurorehabilitation; to provide an overview of the practice-effects literature in order to simplify and amalgamate a large number of heterogeneous findings and identify typical patterns of practice effects and their determining factors; and to concentrate on the impact of practice on higher cognitive functions, such as working memory, and present some preliminary but promising behavioral data that show how practice on a complex cognitive task can benefit cognitive functioning more generally. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic search for peer-reviewed journal articles using computerized databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Science, PsycINFO). DATA SELECTION: Neuroimaging studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or positron-emission tomography (PET) to examine functional activation changes as a result of practice on sensory, motor, or cognitive tasks in normal (healthy) populations were included in the review. Further studies were identified that examined the effects of rehabilitative training on functional activations in clinical populations using fMRI or PET. DATA EXTRACTION: Important characteristics of the selected studies were summarized in a systematic manner so to enable the extraction of specific factors impacting on the pattern of practice effects observed. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified a number of factors that impact on the patterns of practice effects observed and discuss how the insights gained from the study of healthy populations can by applied to rehabilitation of cognitive deficits in clinical populations. CONCLUSIONS: Progress in our understanding of neurorehabilitative plasticity will be enabled by neuroimaging examinations of cognitive rehabilitation training grounded in a knowledge of normal (healthy) patterns of brain activation and practice-induced plasticity.
OBJECTIVES: To illustrate how our knowledge about normal patterns of experience-induced plasticity can provide insights into the mechanisms of neurorehabilitation; to provide an overview of the practice-effects literature in order to simplify and amalgamate a large number of heterogeneous findings and identify typical patterns of practice effects and their determining factors; and to concentrate on the impact of practice on higher cognitive functions, such as working memory, and present some preliminary but promising behavioral data that show how practice on a complex cognitive task can benefit cognitive functioning more generally. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic search for peer-reviewed journal articles using computerized databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Science, PsycINFO). DATA SELECTION: Neuroimaging studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or positron-emission tomography (PET) to examine functional activation changes as a result of practice on sensory, motor, or cognitive tasks in normal (healthy) populations were included in the review. Further studies were identified that examined the effects of rehabilitative training on functional activations in clinical populations using fMRI or PET. DATA EXTRACTION: Important characteristics of the selected studies were summarized in a systematic manner so to enable the extraction of specific factors impacting on the pattern of practice effects observed. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified a number of factors that impact on the patterns of practice effects observed and discuss how the insights gained from the study of healthy populations can by applied to rehabilitation of cognitive deficits in clinical populations. CONCLUSIONS: Progress in our understanding of neurorehabilitative plasticity will be enabled by neuroimaging examinations of cognitive rehabilitation training grounded in a knowledge of normal (healthy) patterns of brain activation and practice-induced plasticity.
Authors: Simone Kühn; Florian Schmiedek; Hannes Noack; Elisabeth Wenger; Nils C Bodammer; Ulman Lindenberger; Martin Lövden Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Camille F Chavan; Michael Mouthon; Bogdan Draganski; Wietske van der Zwaag; Lucas Spierer Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: S M Hadi Hosseini; Mika Pritchard-Berman; Natasha Sosa; Angelica Ceja; Shelli R Kesler Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Heather M Conklin; Robert J Ogg; Jason M Ashford; Matthew A Scoggins; Ping Zou; Kellie N Clark; Karen Martin-Elbahesh; Kristina K Hardy; Thomas E Merchant; Sima Jeha; Lu Huang; Hui Zhang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 44.544