Posts Tagged cognitive functions

[BOOK Chapter] Assessment and Rehabilitation Using Virtual Reality after Stroke: A Literature Review – Abstract + References

Abstract

This chapter presents the studies that have used virtual reality as an assessment or rehabilitation tool of cognitive functions following a stroke. To be part of this review, publications must have made a collection of data from individuals who have suffered a stroke and must have been published between 1980 and 2017. A total of 50 publications were selected out of a possible 143 that were identified in the following databases: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Collection. Overall, we find that most of the studies that have used virtual reality with stroke patients focused on attention, spatial neglect, and executive functions/multitasking. Some studies have focused on route representation, episodic memory, and prospective memory. Virtual reality has been used for training of cognitive functions with stroke patients, but also for their assessment. Overall, the studies support the value and relevance of virtual reality as an assessment and rehabilitation tool with people who have suffered a stroke. Virtual reality seems indeed an interesting way to better describe the functioning of the person in everyday life. Virtual reality also sometimes seems to be more sensitive than traditional approaches for detecting deficits in stroke people. However, it is important to pursue work in this emergent field in clinical neuropsychology.

References

  1. Ansuini, C., Pierno, A. C., Lusher, D., & Castiello, U. (2006). Virtual reality applications for the remapping of space in neglect patients. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 24(4–6), 431–441.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baheux, K., Yoshikawa, M., Tanaka, A., Seki, K., & Handa, Y. (2004). Diagnosis and rehabilitation of patients with hemispatial neglect using virtual reality technology. Conference proceedings: Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, 7, 4908–4911.Google Scholar
  3. Baheux, K., Yoshizawa, M., Tanaka, A., Seki, K., & Handa, Y. (2005). Diagnosis and rehabilitation of hemispatial neglect patients with virtual reality technology. Technology and health careOfficial Journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 13(4), 245–260.Google Scholar
  4. Baheux, K., Yoshizawa, M., Seki, K., & Handa, Y. (2006). Virtual reality pencil and paper test for neglect: A protocol. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 9(2), 192–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broeren, J., Samuelsson, H., Stibrant-Sunnerhagen, K., Blomstrand, C., & Rydmark, M. (2007). Neglect assessment as an application of virtual reality. Acta Neurlogica Scandinavica, 116, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks, B. M., Rose, F. D., Potter, J., Jayawardena, S., & Morling, A. (2004). Assessing stroke patients’ prospective memory using virtual reality. Brain Injury, 18(4), 391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buxbaum, L. J., Palermo, M., Mastrogiovanni, D., Read, M., Rosenberg-Pitonyak, E., Rizzo, A. A., & Coslett, H. (2008). Assessment of spatial attention and neglect with a virtual wheelchair navigation task. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology, 30(6), 650–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buxbaum, L. J., Dawson, A. M., & Linsley, D. (2012). Reliability and validity of the virtual reality lateralized attention test in assessing hemispatial neglect in right-hemisphere stroke. Neuropsychology, 26(4), 430–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameirão, M. S., Faria, A. L., Paulino, T., Alves, J., & i Badia, S. B. (2016). The impact of positive, negative and neutral stimuli in a virtual reality cognitive-motor rehabilitation task: a pilot study with stroke patients. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 13(1), 70.Google Scholar
  10. Carelli, L., Rusconi, M. L., Mattioli, F., Stampatori, C., Morganti, F., & Riva, G. (2009). Neuropsychological and virtual reality assessment in topographical disorientation. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 7, 230–233.Google Scholar
  11. Carelli, L., Rusconi, M. L., Scarabelli, C., Stampatori, C., Mattioli, F., & Riva, G. (2011). The transfer from survey (map-like) to route representations into virtual reality Mazes: effect of age and cerebral lesion. Journal Of Neuroengineering And Rehabilitation, 2011 Jan 31; Vol 8, pp 6 Electronic Publication.Google Scholar
  12. Castiello, U., Lusher, D., Burton, C., Glover, S., & Disler, P. (2004). Improving left hemispatial neglect using virtual reality. Neurology, 62, 1958–1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cherniack, E. P. (2011). Not just fun and games: Applications of virtual reality in the identification and rehabilitation of cognitive disorders of the elderly. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(4), 283–289.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.542570.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Crosbie, J. H., Lennon, S., Basford, J. R., & McDonough, S. M. (2007). Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: Still more virtual than real. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29(14), 1139–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawson, A. M., Buxbaum, L. J., & Rizzo, A. A. (2008). The virtual reality lateralized attention test: Sensitivity and validity of a new clinical tool for assessing hemispatial neglect. Virtual Rehabilitation, 77–82.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVR.2008.4625140.
  16. Dvorkin, A. Y., Rymer, W. Z., Harvey, R. L., Bogey, R. A., & Patton, J. L. (2008). Assessment and monitoring of recovery of spatial neglect within a virtual environment. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Rehabilitation, 88–92.Google Scholar
  17. Dvorkin, A. Y., Bogey, R. A., Harvey, R. L., & Patton, J. L. (2012). Mapping the neglected space: Gradients of detection revealed by virtual reality. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 26(2), 120–131.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968311410068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Edmans, J., Gladman, J., Walker, M., Sunderland, A., Porter, A., & Fraser, D. S. (2004). Mixed reality environments in stroke rehabilitation: Development as rehabilitation tools. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 6(1), 39–45.Google Scholar
  19. Faria, A. L., Andrade, A., Soares, L., & i Badia, S. B. (2016). Benefits of virtual reality based cognitive rehabilitation through simulated activities of daily living: A randomized controlled trial with stroke patients. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 13(1), 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fordell, H., Bodin, K., Bucht, G., & Malm, J. (2011). A virtual reality test battery for assessment and screening of spatial neglect. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 123, 167–174.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2010.01390.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gamito, P., Oliveira, J., Coelho, C., Morais, D., Lopes, P., Pacheco, J., & Barata, A. F. (2017). Cognitive training on stroke patients via virtual reality-based serious games. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(4), 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glover, S., & Castiello, U. (2006). Recovering space in unilateral neglect: A neurological dissociation revealed by virtual reality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(5), 833–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guilbert, A., Clément, S., Martin, Y., Feuillet, A., & Moroni, C. (2016). Exogenous orienting of attention in hearing: A virtual reality paradigm to assess auditory attention in neglect patients. Experimental Brain Research, 234(10), 2893–2903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gupta, V., Knott, B. A., Kodgi, S., & Lathan, C. E. (2000). Using the “vreye” system for the assessment of unilateral visual neglect: Two case reports. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 9(3), 268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jannink, M. J. A., Aznar, M., de Kort, A. C., van de Vis, W., Veltink, P., & van der Kooij, H. (2009). Assessment of visuospatial neglect in stroke patients using virtual reality: A pilot study. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 32(4), 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jovanovski, D., Zakzanis, K., Ruttan, L., Campbell, Z., Erb, S., & Nussbaum, D. (2012). Ecologically valid assessment of executive dysfunction using a novel virtual reality task in patients with acquired brain injury. Applied Neuropsychology, 19, 207–220.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09084282.2011.643956.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kang, Y. J., Ku, J., Han, K., Kim, S. I., Yu, T. W., Lee, J. H., & Park, C. I. (2008). Development and clinical trial of virtual reality-based cognitive assessment in people with stroke: Preleminary study. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 11(3), 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katz, N., Ring, H., Naveh, Y., Kizony, R., Feintuch, U., & Weiss, P. L. (2005). Interactive virtual environment training for safe street crossing of right hemisphere stroke patients with unilateral spatial neglect. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27(20), 1235–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, K., Kim, J., Ku, J., Kim, D. Y., Chang, W. H., Shin, D. I., Lee, J. H., Kim, I. Y., & Kim, S. I. (2004). A virtual reality assessment and training system for unilateral neglect. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 7, 742–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, J., Kim, K., Kim, D. Y., Chang, W. H., Park, C.-I., Ohn, S. H., Han, K., Ku, J., Nam, S. W., Kim, I. Y., & Kim, S. I. (2007). Virtual environment training system for rehabilitation of stroke patients with unilateral neglect: Crossing the virtual street. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 10(1), 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, D. Y., Ku, J., Chang, W. H., Park, T. H., Lim, J. Y., Han, K., Kim, I. Y., & Kim, S. I. (2010). Assessment of post-stroke extrapersonal neglect using a three-dimensional immersive virtual street crossing program. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 121, 171–177.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2009.01194.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, B. R., Chun, M. H., Kim, L. S., & Park, J. Y. (2011b). Effect of virtual reality on cognition in stroke patients. Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, 35(3), 450–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim, Y. M., Chun, M. H., Yun, G. J., Song, Y. J., & Young, H. E. (2011a). The effect of virtual reality training on unilateral spatial neglect in stroke patients. Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, 35(3), 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knight, C., Alderman, N., & Burgess, P. W. (2002). Development of a simplified version of the multiple errands test for use in hospital settings. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 12(3), 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, J. H., Ku, J., Cho, W., Hahn, W. Y., Kim, I. Y., Lee, S.-M., Kang, Y., Kim, D. Y., Yu, T., Wiederhold, B. K., Wiederhold, M., & Kim, S. I. (2003). A virtual reality system for the assessment and rehabilitation of the activities of daily living. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 6(4), 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lisa, L. P., Jughters, A., & Kerckhofs, E. (2013). The effectiveness of different treatment modalities for the rehabilitation of unilateral neglect in stroke patients: A systematic review. NeuroRehabilitation, 33, 611–620.  https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-130986.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Maier, M., Bañuelos, N. L., Ballester, B. R., Duarte, E., & Verschure, P. F. (2017, July). Conjunctive rehabilitation of multiple cognitive domains for chronic stroke patients in virtual reality. In Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 2017 international conference on (pp. 947–952). IEEE.Google Scholar
  38. Morganti, F. (2004). Virtual interaction in cognitive neuropsychology. Studies in Health, Technologies and Informatics, 99, 55–70.Google Scholar
  39. Myers, R. L., & Bierig, T. (2003). Virtual reality and left hemineglect: A technology for assessment and therapy. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 3, 465–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Navarro, M_. D., Llorens, R., Noé, E., Ferri, J., & Alcaniz, M. (2013). Validation of a low-cost virtual reality system for training street-crossing. A comparative study in healthy, neglected and non-neglected stroke individuals. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 23(4), 597–618.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.806269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Nir-Hadad, S. Y., Weiss, P. L., Waizman, A., Schwartz, N., & Kizony, R. (2017). A virtual shopping task for the assessment of executive functions: Validity for people with stroke. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 27(5), 808–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pridmore, T., Cobb, S., Hilton, D., Green, J., & Eastgate, R. (2007). Mixed reality environments in stroke rehabilitation: Interfaces across the real-virtual divide. International Journal of Disability and Human Development, 6(1), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rand, D., Katz, N., Kizony, R., & Weiss, P. L. (2005). The virtual mall: a functional virtual environment for stroke rehabilitation. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine, 3, 193–198.Google Scholar
  44. Rand, D., Katz, N., & Weiss, P. L. (2007). Evaluation of virtual shopping in the VMall: Comparison of post-stroke participants to healthy control groups. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 1710–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rand, D., Basha-Abu Rukan, S., Weiss, P. L., & Katz, N. (2009a). Validation of the virtual MET as an assessment tool for executive functions. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 19, 583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rand, D., Weiss, P. L., & Katz, N. (2009b). Training multitasking in virtual supermarket: A novel intervention after stroke. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(5), 535–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raspelli, S., Carelli, L., Morganti, F., Poletti, B., Corra, B., Silani, V., & Riva, G. (2010). Implementation of the multiple errands test in NeuroVR supermarket: A possible approach. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 154, 115–119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Raspelli, S., Pallavicini, F., Carelli, L., Morganti, F., Poletti, B., Corra, B., Silani, V., & Riva, G. (2011). Validation of a neuro virtual reality-based version of the multiple errands test for the assessment of executive functions. Annual Review of CyberTheraphy and Telemedicine, 9, 72–80.Google Scholar
  49. Riva, G., Carelli, L., Gaggioli, A., Gorini, A., Vigna, C., Corsi, R., Faletti, G., & Vezzadini, L. (2009). NeuroVR 1.5 – a free virtual reality platform for the assessment and treatment in clinical psychology and neuroscience. Milan: Applied Technology for Neuro-Psychology Laboratory, Instituto Auxologico Italiano.Google Scholar
  50. Rose, F. D., Brooks, B. M., Attree, E. A., Parslow, D. M., Leadbetter, A. G., McNeil, J. E., Jayawardenas, S., Greenwood, R., & Potter, J. (1999). A preliminary investigation into the use of virtual environments in memory retraining after vascular brain injury: Indications for future strategy? Disability and Rehabilitation, 21(12), 548–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rose, F. D., Brooks, B. M., & Rizzo, A. A. (2005). Virtual reality in brain damage rehabilitation: Review. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 8(3), 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rushton, S. K., Coles, K. L., & Wann, J. P. (1996). Virtual reality technology in the assessment and rehabilitation of unilateral visual neglect. 1st European Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality, and Associated Technologies. Maidenhead.Google Scholar
  53. Salva, A. M., Wiederhold, B. K., Alban, A. J., Hughes, C., Smith, E., Fidopiastis, C., & Wiederhold, M. D. (2009). Cognitive therapy using mixed reality for those impaired by cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 7, 253–256.Google Scholar
  54. Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. W. (1991). Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain, 114, 727–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith, J., Hebert, D., & Reid, D. (2007). Exploring the effects of virtual reality on unilateral neglect caused by stroke: Four case studies. Technology & Disability, 19, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tanaka, T., Sugihara, S., Nara, H., Ino, S., & Ifukube, T. (2005). A preliminary study of clinical assessment of the left unilateral spatial neglect using a head-mounted display system (HMD) in rehabilitation engineering technology. Journal of Neuroengineering & Rehabilitation, 2, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tanaka, T., Ifukube, T., Sugihara, S., & Izumi, T. (2010). A case study of new assessment and training of unilateral spatial neglect in stroke patients: Effect of visual image transformation and visual stimulation by using a head-mounted display system (HMD). Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 7(20), 1–8.Google Scholar
  58. Tsirlin, I., Dupierrix, E., Chokron, S., Coquillart, S., & Ohlmann, T. (2009). Uses of virtual reality for diagnosis, rehabilitation and study of unilateral spatial neglect: Review and analysis. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 12(2), 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weiss, P. L., Naveh, Y., & Katz, N. (2003). Design and testing of virtual environment to train stroke patients with unilateral spatial neglect to cross a street safely. Occupational Therapy International, 10(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williams, G. R., Jiang, J. G., Matchar, D. B., & Samsa, G. O. (1999). Incidence and occurrence of total (first-ever and recurrent) stroke. Stroke, 30, 2523–2528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yasuda, K., Muroi, D., Ohira, M., & Iwata, H. (2017). Validation of an immersive virtual reality system for training near and far space neglect in individuals with stroke: A pilot study. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 24(7), 533–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

via Assessment and Rehabilitation Using Virtual Reality after Stroke: A Literature Review | SpringerLink

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[WEB SITE] Brain Injury Rehabilitation – Cognitive

Brain injury rehabilitation involves two essential processes: restoration of functions that can be restored and learning how to do things differently when functions cannot be restored to pre-injury level.

Brain injury rehabilitation is is based on the nature and scope of neuropsychological symptoms identified on special batteries of test designed to measure brain functioning following brain injury. 

While practice in various cognitive tasks–doing arithmetic problems, solving logic puzzles, concentration skills, or reading–may help brain rehabilitation, this is usually not enough. 

Brain injury rehabilitation must be designed taking into account a broad range of neuro-functional strengths and weaknesses. Basic skills must be strengthened before more complex skills are added. Only through comprehensive neuropsychological analysis can the many possible effects of brain injury be sorted out. This pattern of functional strengths and weaknesses becomes the foundation for designing a program of brain rehabilitation. 

Brain recovery follows patterns of brain development. Gross or large-scale systems must develop (or be retrained) before fine systems. Attention, focus, and perceptual skills develop (or are retrained) before complex intellectual activity can be successful.

What Are the Cognitive and Communication Problems That Result From Traumatic Brain Injury?

  • Cognitive and communication problems that result from traumatic brain injury vary from person to person. These problems depend on many factors which include an individual’s personality, preinjury abilities, and the severity of the brain damage.
  • Cognitive functions refer to what or how much (e.g., How much does s/he know? What can s/he do?. So long as the executive functions are intact, a person can sustain considerable cognitive loss and still continue to be independent, constructively self-serving, and productive. 
  • When executive functions are impaired. the individual may no longer be capable of satisfactory self-care, of performing remunerative or useful work on his or her own, or of maintaining normal social relationships regardless of how well preserved are his or her cognitive capacities — or how high his or her  scores on tests of skills, knowledge, and abilities. 
  • Moreover, cognitive deficits usually involve specific functions or functional areas; impairment in executive functions tend to show up globally, affecting all aspects of behavior.
  • Executive functions consist of those capacities that enable a person to engage in independent, purposive, self-serving behavior successfully. They differ from cognitive functions in a number of ways.  Questions about executive functions ask how or whether a person goes about doing something (e.g., Will s/he do it and, if so how?) 

(Source: Dr. Muriel Lezak,  Neuropsychological Assessment)

  • The effects of the brain damage are generally greatest immediately following the injury. However, some effects from traumatic brain injury may be misleading. The newly injured brain often suffers temporary damage from swelling and a form of “bruising” called contusions. These types of damage are usually not permanent and the functions of those areas of the brain return once the swelling or bruising goes away. Therefore, it is difficult to predict accurately the extent of long-term problems in the first weeks following traumatic brain injury.
  • Focal damage, however, may result in long-term, permanent difficulties.Improvements can occur as other areas of the brain learn to take over the function of the damaged areas. Children’s brains are much more capable of this flexibility than are the brains of adults. For this reason, children who suffer brain trauma might progress better than adults with similar damage. 
  • In moderate to severe injuries, the swelling may cause pressure on a lower part of the brain called the brainstem, which controls consciousness or wakefulness. Many individuals who suffer these types of injuries are in an unconscious state called acoma. A person in a coma may be completely unresponsive to any type of stimulation such as loud noises, pain, or smells. Others may move, make noise, or respond to pain but be unaware of their surroundings. These people are unable to communicate. Some people recover from a coma, becoming alert and able to communicate. 
  • In conscious individuals, cognitive impairments often include having problems concentrating for varying periods of time, having trouble organizing thoughts, and becoming easily confused or forgetful. Some individuals will experience difficulty learning new information. Still others will be unable to interpret the actions of others and therefore have great problems in social situations. For these individuals, what they say or what they do is often inappropriate for the situation. Many will experience difficulty solving problems, making decisions, and planning. Judgment is often affected.
  • Language problems also vary. Problems often include: 
    • word-finding difficulty 
    • poor sentence formation 
    • and lengthy and often faulty descriptions or explanations. 
  • These are to cover for a lack of 
    • understanding or inability to think of a word. 
    • For example, when asking for help finding a belt while dressing, an individual may ask for “the circular cow thing that I used yesterday and before.”
    • Many have difficulty understanding multiple meanings in jokes, sarcasm, and adages or figurative expressions such as, “A rolling stone gathers no moss” or “Take a flying leap.” 
  • Individuals with traumatic brain injuries are often unaware of their errors and can become frustrated or angry and place the blame for communication difficulties on the person to whom they are speaking. Reading and writing abilities are often worse than those for speaking and understanding spoken words. Simple and complex mathematical abilities are often affected. 
  • The speech produced by a person who has traumatic brain injury may be slow, slurred, and difficult or impossible to understand if the areas of the brain that control the muscles of the speech mechanism are damaged. 
    • This type of speech problem is called dysarthria
    • These individuals may also experience problems swallowing. 
    • This is called dysphagia. Others may have what is called apraxia of speech, a condition in which strength and coordination of the speech muscles are unimpaired but the individual experiences difficulty saying words correctly in a consistent way. 
    • For example, someone may repeatedly stumble on the word “tomorrow” when asked to repeat it, but then be able to say it in a statement such as, “I’ll try to say it again tomorrow.”
  • How Are the Cognitive and Communication Problems Assessed? 
    • The assessment of cognitive and communication problems is a continual, ongoing process that involves a number of professionals. 
    • Immediately following the injury, a neurologist (a physician who specializes in nervous system disorders) or another physician may conduct an informal, bedside evaluation of 
      • attention 
      • memory 
      • and the ability to understand and speak. 
    • Once the person’s physical condition has stabilized, a 
    • speech-language pathologist may evaluate cognitive and communication skills, and a 
    • neuropsychologist may evaluate other cognitive and behavioral abilities. 
    • Occupational therapists also assess cognitive skills related to the individual’s ability to perform “activities of daily living” (ADL) such as dressing or preparing meals. An audiologist should assess hearing. All assessments continue at frequent intervals during the rehabilitative process so that progress can be documented and treatment plans updated. The rehabilitative process may last for several months to a year.
  • How Are the Cognitive and Communication Problems Treated?
    • The cognitive and communication problems of traumatic brain injury are best treated early, often beginning while the individual is still in the hospital. 
    • This early therapy will frequently center on increasing skills of alertness and attention. They will focus on improving orientation to person, place, time, and situation, and stimulating speech understanding. 
    • The therapist will provide oral-motor exercises in cases where the individual has speech and swallowing problems.
  • Longer term rehabilitation may be performed individually, in groups, or both, depending upon the needs of the individual. This therapy often occurs in a rehabilitation facility designed specifically for the treatment of individuals with traumatic brain injury. 
  • This type of setting allows for intensive therapy by speech-language pathologists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and neuropsychologists at a time when the individual can best benefit from such intensive therapy. 
  • Other individuals may receive therapy at home by visiting therapists or on an outpatient basis at a hospital, medical center, or rehabilitation facility.
  • The goal of rehabilitation is to help the individual progress to the most independent level of functioning possible. For some, ability to express needs verbally in simple terms may be a goal. For others, the goal may be to express needs by pointing to pictures. For still others, the goal of therapy may be to improve the ability to define words or describe consequences of actions or events. 
  • Therapy will focus on regaining lost skills as well as learning ways to compensate for abilities that have been permanently changed because of the brain injury. Most individuals respond best to programs tailored to their backgrounds and interests. The most effective therapy programs involve family members who can best provide this information. Computer-assisted programs have been successful with some individuals.

What Research Is Being Done for the Cognitive and Communication Problems Caused by Traumatic Brain Injury?

  • Researchers are studying many issues related to the special cognitive and communication problems experienced by individuals who have traumatic brain injuries.
  • Scientists are designing new evaluation tools to assess the special problems that children who have suffered traumatic brain injuries encounter. 
  • Because the brain of a child is vastly different from the brain of an adult, scientists are also examining the effects of various treatment methods that have been developed specifically for children. 
  • These new strategies include the use of computer programs. In addition, research is examining the effects of some medications on the recovery of speech, language, and cognitive abilities following traumatic brain injury.

Source: Brain Injury Rehabilitation – Cognitive

, , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: