Citation

Cicerone KD, Goldin Y, Ganci K, Rosenbaum A, Wethe JV, Langenbahn DM, Malec JF, Bergquist TF, Kingsley K, Nagele D, Trexler L, Fraas M, Bogdanova Y, Harley JP. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2022; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.apmr.2022.05.021

PMID

35777470

Abstract

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our recommendations for evidence-based rehabilitation of attention deficits after TBI and stoke. In our 2011 paper (1) we recommended a Practice Standard for incorporating both direct-attention training and metacognitive strategy training to promote compensatory strategies and generalization to real-life tasks. We also recommended a general Practice Option for the use of computer-based interventions as an adjunct to clinician-guided treatment. In our 2019 paper (2) we retained our recommended Practice Standard. We also noted two papers by Vallet-Azouvi and colleagues (3,4) that reported efficacy of direct-attention training for specific components of working memory. These interventions did not rely on computer-based interventions. However, we noted a class I study (5) that relied on computer-based interventions to increase performance on working memory tasks and self-reported cognitive difficulties. Based primarily on these three studies, we made a stronger but more precise recommendation for the use of direct attention training, including the use of computer-based tasks, for specific, modular impairments of working memory. We considered this Practice Guideline to be a refinement of our previous, more general practice option. We continue to consider the use of computer-based tasks as an adjunct to clinician-guided treatment; in fact, our 2019 paper explicitly continued to "emphasize the importance of therapist involvement and intervention…over the stand-alone use of computer-based tasks."...

Language: en