Comparing the Effectiveness of Computer-Based, Manual-based, and Combined Cognitive Rehabilitation on Cognitive Functions in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Patients

Virtual reality for multiple sclerosis rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological disease in young adults. Virtual reality (VR) offers a promising rehabilitation tool by providing controllable, personalised environments for safe, adaptable and engaging training. Virtual reality can be tailored to patients' motor and cognitive skills, enhancing motivation through exciting scenarios and feedback.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the effects of virtual reality interventions compared with an alternative or no intervention on lower limb and gait function, and balance and postural control in people with MS. Secondary objective To assess the effects of virtual reality interventions compared with an alternative or no intervention on upper limb function, cognitive function, fatigue, global motor function, activity limitation, participation restriction and quality of life, and adverse events in people with MS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant articles through electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL and Scopus. We also searched trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP search portal) and checked reference lists. We carried out all searches up until August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only (quasi-)randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed virtual reality interventions, defined as "an artificial, computer-generated simulation or creation of a real-life environment or situation allowing the user to navigate through and interact with", in people with MS. The primary outcomes were lower limb and gait function, and balance and postural control. Secondary outcome measures were upper limb function, cognitive function, fatigue, global motor function, activity limitation, participation and quality of life, and adverse events. Eligible participants were people with MS who were 18 years or older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the studies based on pre-specified criteria, extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We used the risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). A third review author was consulted to resolve conflicts.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 RCTs with 1294 people with MS. The sample sizes of the included studies were relatively small and there was considerable heterogeneity between studies regarding the virtual reality devices and the outcome measures used. The control group either received no intervention, conventional therapy or an alternative intervention (an intervention that does not fit the description of conventional therapy for the rehabilitation of people with MS). We most frequently judged the risk of bias as 'some concerns' across domains, leading to an overall high risk of bias in the majority of included studies for all outcome measures. Primary outcomes When compared with no intervention, virtual reality interventions may result in no difference in lower limb and gait function (Timed Up and Go, mean difference (MD) -0.43 sec, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.85 to 0.00; 6 studies, 264 participants; low-certainty evidence) or balance and postural control (Berg Balance Scale, MD 0.29 points, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.68; 4 studies, 137 participants; very low-certainty evidence). When virtual reality interventions are compared to conventional therapy, results for lower limb and gait function probably do not differ between interventions (Timed Up and Go, MD -0.2 sec, -1.65 to 1.25; 4 studies, 107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, virtual reality interventions probably improve balance and postural control (Berg Balance Scale, MD 2.39 points, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.57; 7 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), almost reaching the clinically important difference (3 points). Secondary outcomes Compared to no intervention, the use of virtual reality may also improve upper limb function (9-Hole Peg Test, MD -4.19 sec, 95% CI -5.86 to -2.52; 2 studies, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence), almost reaching the clinically important difference (4.38 points) and participation and quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (MS International QoL, MD 9.24 points, 95% CI 5.76 to 12.73; 2 studies, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to conventional therapy, virtual reality interventions may improve participation and quality of life (Falls Efficacy Scale-1, MD -3.07 points, 95% CI -5.99 to -0.15; 3 studies, 101 participants; low-certainty evidence), but not upper limb function (9-Hole Peg Test, MD 0.10 sec, 95% CI -1.70 to 1.89; 3 studies, 93 participants; low-certainty evidence). For other key secondary outcome measures, i.e. global motor function and adverse events, there were no data available as these were not measured in the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence that the use of virtual reality may be more effective than no intervention in improving upper limb function and participation and quality of life. Training with virtual reality may be superior to conventional therapy for improving balance and postural control, and participation and quality of life. For the other outcomes, there was no clear difference between virtual reality and conventional therapy. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about the effect of virtual reality on global motor function, activity limitations and adverse events. Additional high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to expand and confirm these findings.

Rehabilitation of working memory after acquired brain injury and multiple sclerosis: A systematic review

The objective is to study the effectiveness of working memory (WM) rehabilitation after Acquired brain injury (ABI) and multiple sclerosis (MS). A systematic database search of published studies, following PRISMA recommendations, with assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias, was conducted. The results were analysed according to the rehabilitation method used. 31 studies (including 14 class I) were included, and 11 different training programs were identified. Despite great variability in training methodology and outcome measures, the results were positive overall. However, only three rehabilitation programs showed a transfer effect to WM (near) and daily life with long-term maintenance. The results were more variable for protocols limited to the use of computerized n-back training tasks. Overall, the current evidence supports multi-task WM training rather than single-task-limited program. It also supports early and long duration training, with some therapist support. However, it is not possible, to date, to make strong recommendations regarding the rehabilitation program to be used preferentially. Although results are encouraging, level of evidence remains modest, particularly regarding the maintenance of the therapeutic effect after the end of training, and the transfer to everyday life skills. The influence of rehabilitation parameters (training duration, therapist involvement … ) remains difficult to assess.

Computerized cognitive retraining (ReadON.ai) among children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Background

ADHD affects 8% of children and adolescents globally, marked by significant deficits in cognitive abilities, which leads to various emotional, behavioral, and adjustment issues. Traditional methods like medication and behavior therapy fall short in managing ADHD's cognitive domains, urging the adoption of innovative approaches like cognitive training programs specifically adopting the emerging technology such as ReadON.ai. However, the precise influence of computerized cognitive retraining on ADHD remains understudied.

Aim

To study the feasibility of computerized cognitive retraining (ReadON.ai) in enhancing cognitive abilities in children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Materials and Methods

The study employs a pre- and post-intervention design including six participants (7-11 years), diagnosed with ADHD according to DSM-5 criteria. Each participant underwent 30 hours of computerized cognitive retraining (ReadON.ai) over ten weeks, targeting attention and concentration, working memory, memory and learning, perceptual abilities, and reasoning skills. Assessments before and after intervention included tools like Conners' 4TM Parent version and ReadON.ai CSA. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS version 28.

Results

Paired t-test results revealed a significant difference in pre-test and post-test means of attention and concentration (t = -6.873, P < 0.001), working memory (t = -5.771, P < 0.001), learning and memory (t = -12.491, P < 0.001), perception (t = 14.398, P < 0.004), reasoning (t = -3.464, P < 0.018), hyperactivity (t = 11.073, P < 0.001), impulsivity (t = 11.948, P < 0.001), emotional dysregulation (t = 8.242, P < 0.001), anxious thoughts (t = 2.67 P = 0.219), depressed mood (t = 2.924, P = 0.020), school work (t = 7.387, P = 0.001) and peer interaction (t = 4.632, P = 0.006) with medium to large effect size.

Conclusion

Computerized cognitive retraining through ReadON.ai is feasible in enhancing cognitive abilities like attention and concentration, working memory, memory and learning, perception, and reasoning among children with ADHD.

Artificial Cognitive Systems Applied in Executive Function Stimulation and Rehabilitation Programs: A Systematic Review

This article presents a systematic review of studies on cognitive training programs based on artificial cognitive systems and digital technologies and their effect on executive functions. The aim has been to identify which populations have been studied, the characteristics of the implemented programs, the types of implemented cognitive systems and digital technologies, the evaluated executive functions, and the key findings of these studies. The review has been carried out following the PRISMA protocol; five databases have been selected from which 1889 records were extracted. The articles were filtered following established criteria, to give a final selection of 264 articles that have been used for the purposes of this study in the analysis phase. The findings showed that the most studied populations were school-age children and the elderly. The most studied executive functions were working memory and attentional processes, followed by inhibitory control and processing speed. Many programs were commercial, customizable, gamified, and based on classic tasks. Some more recent initiatives have begun to incorporate user-machine interfaces, robotics, and virtual reality, although studies on their effects remain scarce. The studies recognize multiple benefits of computerized neuropsychological stimulation and rehabilitation programs for executive functions in different age groups, but there is a lack of studies in specific population sectors and with more rigorous research designs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13369-022-07292-5.

Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Problems with cognition, particularly memory, are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and can affect their ability to complete daily activities and can negatively affect quality of life. Over the last few years, there has been considerable growth in the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of memory rehabilitation in MS. To guide clinicians and researchers, this review provides an overview of the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation for people with MS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether people with MS who received memory rehabilitation compared to those who received no treatment, or an active control showed better immediate, intermediate, or longer-term outcomes in their: 1. memory functions, 2. other cognitive abilities, and 3. functional abilities, in terms of activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL which includes Clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (The Whoqol) International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, Embase and PubMed (MEDLINE), and the following electronic databases (6 September 2020): CINAHL, LILACS, the NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio database, The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, and CAB Abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs or quasi-RCTs of memory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for people with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared with a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and then confirmed through group discussion. We excluded studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS, unless we could identify a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eight review authors were involved in this update in terms of study selection, quality assessment, data extraction and manuscript review. We contacted investigators of primary studies for further information where required. We conducted data analysis and synthesis in accordance with Cochrane methods. We performed a 'best evidence' synthesis based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included. Outcomes were considered separately for 'immediate' (within the first month after completion of intervention), 'intermediate' (one to six months), and 'longer-term' (more than six months) time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We added 29 studies during this update, bringing the total to 44 studies, involving 2714 participants. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on using internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment-only groups, discussion and games, non-specific cognitive retraining, and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias amongst the included studies was generally low, but we found eight studies to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology. In this abstract, we are only reporting outcomes at the intermediate timepoint (i.e., between one and six months). We found a slight difference between groups for subjective memory (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.35; 11 studies; 1045 participants; high-quality evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58; 6 studies; 683 participants; high-quality evidence) favoring the memory rehabilitation group. There was a small difference between groups for verbal memory (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 6 studies; 753 participants; low-quality evidence) and information processing (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.54; 8 studies; 933 participants; low-quality evidence), favoring the memory rehabilitation group.  We found little to no difference between groups for visual memory (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.50; 6 studies; 751 participants; moderate-quality evidence), working memory (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.40; 8 studies; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or activities of daily living (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 4 studies; 400 participants; high-quality evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on some outcomes assessed in this review at intermediate follow-up. The evidence suggests that memory rehabilitation results in between-group differences favoring the memory rehabilitation group at the intermediate time point for subjective memory, verbal memory, information processing, and quality of life outcomes, suggesting that memory rehabilitation is beneficial and meaningful to people with MS. There are differential effects of memory rehabilitation based on the quality of the trials, with studies of high risk of bias inflating (positive) outcomes. Further robust, large-scale, multi-centre RCTs, with better quality reporting, using ecologically valid outcome assessments (including health economic outcomes) assessed at longer-term time points are still needed to be certain about the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation in people with MS.