English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

The effect of high vs. low intensity neuropsychological treatment on working memory in patients with acquired brain injury

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons23009

Weicker,  Juliane
Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University of Leipzig, Germany;
Department Neurology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons199200

Hudl,  Nicole
Department Neurology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;
Professorship of Sports Psychology, TU Chemnitz, Germany;

/persons/resource/persons19903

Obrig,  Hellmuth
Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University of Leipzig, Germany;
Department Neurology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons20065

Villringer,  Arno
Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University of Leipzig, Germany;
Department Neurology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Weicker, J., Hudl, N., Hildebrandt, H., Obrig, H., Schwarzer, M., Villringer, A., et al. (2020). The effect of high vs. low intensity neuropsychological treatment on working memory in patients with acquired brain injury. Brain Injury, 34(8), 1051-1060. doi:10.1080/02699052.2020.1773536.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0006-B57B-4
Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the combined effect of compensation therapy and functional training on working memory (WM) in patients with acquired injury and chronic cognitive deficits by investigating the dose-response relationship and specificity of transfer effects.

Research design: Double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Methods: All patients underwent 4 weeks of compensation therapy in a day-care setting. In addition, they received either 20 sessions of computer-based WM training (n = 11) or attention training (n = 9). Transfer effects on cognition and their functional relevance in daily life were assessed before treatment, after 2 weeks (10 additional training sessions), and after 4 weeks (20 additional training sessions) of therapy.

Results: The combined treatment led to significant improvements in WM performance, verbal memory, and self-reported changes in daily life. The amount of training was identified to modulate efficacy: Significant improvements showed only in the later training phase. We observed no differences between the two training schemes (WM vs. attentional training).

Conclusions: Even in the chronic phase after brain lesion WM performance can be enhanced by the combination of compensation therapy and computerized cognitive training when applied intensely; both a more general attention and a specific WM training regimen are effective.