| Literature DB >> 29301194 |
Elizabeth Fernandez1, Jorge A Bergado Rosado2, Daymi Rodriguez Perez3, Sonia Salazar Santana4, Maydane Torres Aguilar5, Maria Luisa Bringas6,7.
Abstract
Many training programs have been designed using modern software to restore the impaired cognitive functions in patients with acquired brain damage (ABD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a computer-based training program of attention and memory in patients with ABD, using a two-armed parallel group design, where the experimental group (n = 50) received cognitive stimulation using RehaCom software, and the control group (n = 30) received the standard cognitive stimulation (non-computerized) for eight weeks. In order to assess the possible cognitive changes after the treatment, a post-pre experimental design was employed using the following neuropsychological tests: Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS) and Trail Making test A and B. The effectiveness of the training procedure was statistically significant (p < 0.05) when it established the comparison between the performance in these scales, before and after the training period, in each patient and between the two groups. The training group had statistically significant (p < 0.001) changes in focused attention (Trail A), two subtests (digit span and logical memory), and the overall score of WMS. Finally, we discuss the advantages of computerized training rehabilitation and further directions of this line of work.Entities:
Keywords: RehaCom; acquired brain damage; attention; cognitive rehabilitation; computer assisted therapy; memory
Year: 2017 PMID: 29301194 PMCID: PMC5791022 DOI: 10.3390/bs8010004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Sci (Basel) ISSN: 2076-328X
Description of the sample included in the study.
| Training Group | Control Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | No. | % | No. | % | |
| Male | 36 | 72 | 18 | 60 | |
| Female | 14 | 28 | 12 | 40 | |
| Total | 50 | 100 | 30 | 100 | |
| Etiology | TBI | 31 | 62 | 16 | 53 |
| stroke | 19 | 38 | 14 | 47 | |
| Total | 50 | 100 | 30 | 100 | |
| Evolution time | 5.6 | 0.96 | 5 | 0.87 | |
| Educational level | 13 | 0.47 | 13 | 0.60 | |
| Age | 33.7 | 1,77 | 34.2 | 2.27 | |
| Initial neuropsychological evaluation | Global (MMSE) | 23.4 | 0.46 | 25.1 | 0.30 |
| Focused attention (seconds) | 112 | 10.9 | 147.8 | 8.5 | |
| Executive attention (seconds) | 112 | 15.8 | 91 | 11.9 | |
| Memory MQ | 75.9 | 2.24 | 78,3 | 2.7 | |
SEM: standard error of the mean; Evolution time: time since the onset of the acquired brain injury until the moment of the evaluation; Educational level: number of years at the school; TBI: traumatic brain injury; Memory MQ: Memory Quotient.
Neuropsychological assessment scores pre- and post-intervention.
| Variable | Control Group | Training Group | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | Final | Initial | Final | |||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Focused attention Trail A | 147 | 8.5 | 138 * | 8.13 | 112.4 | 10.9 | 88.5 * | 9.35 |
| Executive attention Trail B | 91 | 11.9 | 80 * | 10.17 | 112.64 | 15.80 | 93.1 * | 13.82 |
| Orientation | 4.2 | 0.24 | 4.5 * | 0.17 | 3.98 | 0.21 | 4.60 * | 0.11 |
| Information | 4.1 | 0.25 | 4.8 * | 0.18 | 4.50 | 0.19 | 5.14 | 0.14 |
| Mental control | 5.9 | 0.51 | 6.4 * | 0.40 | 5.70 | 0.34 | 7.02 * | 0.29 |
| Digit span | 7.2 | 0.33 | 7.4 * | 0.30 | 7.12 | 0.27 | 8.36 * | 0.27 |
| Associative learning | 9.8 | 0.69 | 10.4 * | 0.68 | 9.54 | 0.57 | 11.2 * | 0.62 |
| Logical memory | 6.2 | 0.62 | 7.4 * | 0.59 | 5.66 | 0.50 | 8.40 * | 0.55 |
| Visual memory | 6.4 | 0.59 | 7.4 * | 0.58 | 6.28 | 0.40 | 8.00 * | 0.44 |
| Memory Quotient: MQ | 78.3 | 2.74 | 82.6 * | 2.87 | 75.9 | 2.24 | 88.7 * | 2.72 |
Note: * indicates the statistical significance between within groups comparison for p < 0.05.
Results of the comparison between groups using ANCOVA (fixed effects). Main effects of the Group differences between the differential performance before and after intervention in both groups. Effects of age, time of evolution and educational level and their interaction with group.
| Variables | Group | Time of Evolution | Educational Level | Interactions | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | F | ||||||
| Focused attention Trail A | 23.4 | 7.698–606 *** | |||||
| Orientation | 5.24 | 0.025 * | 10.5 | 0.001 ** | |||
| Information | |||||||
| Mental control | |||||||
| Digit span | 7.31 | 0.008 ** | |||||
| Associative learning | 6.87 | 0.010 * | Group*Educational level F = 4.0, | ||||
| Logical memory | 6.97 | 0.01 * | |||||
| Visual memory | |||||||
| Memory Quotient: MQ | 22.35 | 1.118 × 10−5 *** | |||||
Significant probabilities values = * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001, *** p < 0.0001.
Figure 1The difference scores at the attention performance. Note: ** indicates the statistical significance between within groups comparison for p < 0.05.
Figure 2The difference scores in the Memory Quotient after treatment. Note: ** indicates the statistical significance between within groups comparison for p < 0.05.
Figure 3The Mini Mental State (MMSE) scores versus focused attention differences.