Memory impairment after acquired brain injury
Conditions
Interventions
Group 1: Experimental group: Patients received 9 one-to-one therapy sessions. In every session, the patient was trained for half an hour on computer exercises with the new WOME software package17 (Has
degree of difficulty can be adapted to the performance level of the patient. The patient’s task, for instance, was to remember a short series of cards and reproduce it in reverse order, or he had to m
for each of the 2 groups a generic term or heading had to be provided. In another task, for instance, the patient had to produce as many examples as possible of a certain category. The exercises start
Sponsors
Carl von Ossietzky Universität OldenburgFakultät VI - Medizin undGesundheitswissenschaftenDepartment für PsychologieAbt. Neuropsychologie
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Study with patients who have a Barthel Index of at least 70 and are independent in daily life activities. Inclusion criteria were a brain lesion and an outcome score of at least 1 standard deviation below the age and education corrected average on the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) on either the first or fifth learning trial, on the short delay free recall or long delay free recall score. Mean time since brain lesion was 60 days.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria were a severe amnesia, impaired visual functions, and insufficient knowledge of the German language.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Assessment of objective cognitive performance: Two neuropsychological examinations took place. The patients were examined before and after the intervention. The patients were assessed on different cognitive functions by means of a neuropsychological test battery, and the scores were combined into 6 composite scores. The following composite scores (CS) were used to evaluate the treatment effects, all encompassing 3 different tests (except for attention). Composite Score “Working memory” was based on the sum of the well-known digit span forward and backward (from Wechsler Memory Scale), as well as the results (hits minus false positives) of a 2-back task with numbers between 11 and 99. The 2-back task is commonly used as a measure of executive components of the working memory since it requires online monitoring, updating, and active manipulation. Composite Score “Immediate memory” was based on the scores of the California Verbal Lerning Test (CVLT).. Learning trials 1 to 5 were added to the score obtained on the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT subtest 6 [Story], immediate recall). The CVLT is often used in neuropsychological assessment and it predicts success in occupational rehabilitation. Composite Score “Delayed memory” performance was determined by adding the scores of short-term free recall and long-term free recall on the CVLT and the scores of RBMT 6 delayed recall. Composite Score “Prospective memory” performance was established by adding the results of RBMT items 1 + 2 (Names), 3 (Belongings), and 4 (Appointment). The RBMT is one of very few tests with norms for prospective memory performance, and it has been shown to be ecologically valid in predicting everyday memory problems. Word fluency consisted of the sum of the 3 subtests of the Regensburger Wortflüssigkeitstest (RWT), comprising semantic, phonologic word fluency, and the continuous shift between 2 initial letters. For Composite Score “Attention”, the 2 subtests of the alertness test Testb | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Assessment of subjective cognitive performance: Patients completed a questionnaire before and after the intervention. Subjective treatment effects were assessed with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ). The CFQ is a self-rating scale designed to assess cognitive failures in daily life, such as attention deficits and memory problems. The CFQ consists of 25 items, and for each item the participant is asked to indicate how often they noticed problems, with scores ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). The final score is the sum of all items (with a maximum of 100). | — |
Countries
Germany
Contacts
Public ContactHelmut Hildebrandt
Carl von Ossietzky Universität OldenburgFakultät VI - Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften Department für Psychologie Abt. Neuropsychologie
Outcome results
None listed