Remediation of 'working attention' in mild traumatic brain injury

Several studies have reported beneficial effects of treatments for attentional deficits following traumatic brain injury. Improvements in speed of processing appear to be less robust than improvements on non-speeded tasks, while several studies suggest greater benefits of training more complex forms of attention. The present study presents preliminary results concerning the effectiveness of an intervention for attentional deficits after mild traumatic brain injury. The treatment was based upon the conceptualization of deficits and interventions as a function of the central executive component of working memory, or 'working attention'. A prospective, case-comparison design was employed comparing four treatment participants with an untreated comparison sample. Treatment tasks were derived from experimental procedures which have been demonstrated to elicit working memory demands, consisting of 'n-back', random generation, and dual-task procedures. The intervention emphasized the conscious and deliberate use of strategies to effectively allocate attentional resources and manage the rate of information during task performance. Treatment participants were more likely to exhibit clinically significant improvement on measures of attention and reduction of self-reported attentional difficulties in their daily functioning. Further analysis suggested that the principal effect of the intervention was on working memory, i.e. the ability to temporarily maintain and manipulate information during task performance, with no direct effect on processing speed. The results are consistent with a strategy training model of remediation, in which the benefits of treatment are due to participants' improved ability to compensate for residual deficits and adopt strategies for the more effective allocation of their remaining attentional resources.

[1]  J. Patton,et al.  Extended norms for the paced auditory serial addition task , 1991 .

[2]  H Niemann,et al.  Computer-assisted attention retraining in head-injured individuals: a controlled efficacy study of an outpatient program. , 1990, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

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

[4]  A. Basso,et al.  Cognitive neuropsychological rehabilitation: The emperor’s new clothes? , 2000 .

[5]  L. Diller,et al.  Outcome of different treatment mixes in a multidimensional neuropsychological rehabilitation program. , 1992 .

[6]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  The neural basis of the central executive system of working memory , 1995, Nature.

[7]  B. Bussel,et al.  Working memory and supervisory control after severe closed-head injury. A study of dual task performance and random generation. , 1996, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[8]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Working memory or working attention , 1993 .

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

[10]  J. Ponsford,et al.  Evaluation of a remedial programme for attentional deficits following closed-head injury. , 1988, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[11]  Wiebo Brouwer,et al.  Time Pressure Management as a Compensatory Strategy Training after Closed Head Injury , 2000 .

[12]  I. Robertson,et al.  Microcomputer-based attentional retraining after brain damage: A randomised group controlled trial , 1992 .

[13]  K. Willmes,et al.  Do Specific Attention Deficits Need Specific Training , 1997 .

[14]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Developments in the concept of working memory. , 1994 .

[15]  M. Timmerman,et al.  Recovery versus retest effects in attention after closed head injury. , 1999, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.