Speed of Information Processing in Traumatic Brain Injury: Modality‐Specific Factors

Objective: To assess speed of information processing by two serial addition tests (one visual, one auditory) in individuals with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and in a healthy, normal control group (NC). The tasks were designed to equate and control for accuracy of performance across the TBI and NC groups, thus allowing for quantification of information processing speed. Design: Performance across groups and tasks were compared using 2 × 2 repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVAs). In addition, each individual's processing speed was used to adjust rate of stimulus presentation on a subsequent “rehabilitation” trial to determine further whether this adjustment equated accuracy of performance. Setting: Rehabilitation hospital. Patients: 22 outpatients with moderate-to-severe TBI (6 women, 16 men; mean age = 34.6 years; duration of loss of consciousness = 22.6 days) and 20 age- and education-matched healthy controls. Results: Processing speed was slower in TBI subjects, relative to controls and was significantly related to measures of executive functioning for those with TBI. Relative to controls, speed of processing in the TBI group was disproportionately slower when information was presented in the auditory, relative to the visual, modality. Conclusions: Speed of information processing is a major impairment in those with TBI when unconfounded by performance accuracy. The modality-specific impairment observed in the TBI group may, in part, be due to a greater within-modality interference effect created by the auditory version of the task. By manipulating information at a pace customized for an individual through compensatory strategies and environmental modifications, information-processing performance of TBI participants can be enhanced significantly.

[1]  A. V. Zomeren,et al.  Residual complaints of patients two years after severe head injury. , 1985 .

[2]  D. Stuss,et al.  Reaction time after head injury: fatigue, divided and focused attention, and consistency of performance. , 1989, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[3]  B. J. Casey,et al.  Activation of the prefrontal cortex in a nonspatial working memory task with functional MRI , 1994, Human brain mapping.

[4]  B. Deelman,et al.  Differential effects of simple and choice reaction after closed head injury , 1976, Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.

[5]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[6]  D. Gronwall Paced Auditory Serial-Addition Task: A Measure of Recovery from Concussion , 1977, Perceptual and motor skills.

[7]  Sterling C. Johnson,et al.  White matter atrophy, ventricular dilation, and intellectual functioning following traumatic brain injury. , 1994 .

[8]  Keith D. Cicerone,et al.  Clinical sensitivity of four measures of attention to mild traumatic brain injury , 1997 .

[9]  I. Deary,et al.  Which abilities does the PASAT test , 1991 .

[10]  K McFarland,et al.  Speed-accuracy tradeoff models for auditory detection with deadlines. , 1974, Acta psychologica.

[11]  M. Humphreys,et al.  Effects of closed-head injury on attentional processes: an information-processing stage analysis. , 1990, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[12]  D. Roth,et al.  Effects of age and IQ on paced auditory serial addition task (PASAT) performance , 1991 .

[13]  H. Levin,et al.  The frontal lobes and traumatic brain injury. , 1994, The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences.

[14]  G. Macflynn,et al.  Measurement of reaction time following minor head injury. , 1984, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[15]  J. DeLuca,et al.  Acquisition and storage deficits in multiple sclerosis. , 1998, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[16]  T. Petros,et al.  Speed of processing within semantic memory following severe closed head injury , 1991, Brain and Cognition.

[17]  T. Coughlan,et al.  Social adjustment after closed head injury: a further follow-up seven years after injury. , 1985, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[18]  Susan E. Gathercole,et al.  Neuropsychology and working memory: A review. , 1994 .

[19]  Susan K. Johnson,et al.  Selective Impairment of Auditory Processing in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Comparison with Multiple Sclerosis and Healthy Controls , 1996 .

[20]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. , 1996 .

[21]  B. Deelman,et al.  Deficits of attention after closed-head injury: slowness only? , 1996, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[22]  J. Ponsford,et al.  Attentional deficits following closed-head injury. , 1992, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[23]  B. Jennett,et al.  Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. , 1974, Lancet.

[24]  K. Cicerone,et al.  Attention deficits and dual task demands after mild traumatic brain injury. , 1996, Brain injury.

[25]  J. DeLuca,et al.  The question of disproportionate impairments in visual and auditory information processing in multiple sclerosis. , 1997, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[26]  M. Schmitter-Edgecombe,et al.  Effects of severe closed-head injury on three stages of information processing. , 1992, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[27]  N. Kirsch,et al.  Assessment of distractibility in auditory comprehension after traumatic brain injury. , 1988, Brain injury.

[28]  W. Rogers,et al.  Automatic process development following severe closed head injury. , 1997, Neuropsychology.

[29]  J. Jonides,et al.  Dissociating verbal and spatial working memory using PET. , 1996, Cerebral cortex.

[30]  Joan Machamer,et al.  Neuropsychological outcome at 1-year post head injury. , 1995 .