Virtual reality as a method of cognitive training of processing speed, working memory, and sustained attention in persons with acquired brain injury: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acquired brain injury (ABI) often leads to persisting somatic, cognitive, and social impairments. Cognitive impairments of processing speed, sustained attention, and working memory are frequently reported and may negatively affect activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitation efforts aiming to retrain these cognitive functions have often consisted of computerized training programs. However, few studies have demonstrated effects that transfer beyond the trained tasks. There is a growing optimism regarding the potential usefulness of virtual reality (VR) in cognitive rehabilitation. The research literature is sparse, and existing studies are characterized by considerable methodological weaknesses. There is also a lack of knowledge about the acceptance and tolerability of VR as an intervention method for people with ABI. The present study aims to investigate whether playing a commercially available VR game is effective in training cognitive functions after ABI and to explore if the possible effects transfer into everyday functioning.

METHODS

One hundred participants (18-65 years), with a verified ABI, impairments of processing speed/attention, and/or working memory, and a minimum of 12 months post injury will be recruited. Participants with severe aphasia, apraxia, visual neglect, epilepsy, and severe mental illness will be excluded. Participants will be randomized into two parallel groups: (1) an intervention group playing a commercial VR game taxing processing speed, working memory, and sustained attention; (2) an active control group receiving psychoeducation regarding compensatory strategies, and general cognitive training tasks such as crossword puzzles or sudoku. The intervention period is 5 weeks. The VR group will be asked to train at home for 30 min 5 days per week. Each participant will be assessed at baseline with neuropsychological tests and questionnaires, after the end of the intervention (5 weeks), and 16 weeks after baseline. After the end of the intervention period, focus group interviews will be conducted with 10 of the participants in the intervention group, in order to investigate acceptance and tolerability of VR as a training method.

DISCUSSION

This study will contribute to improve understanding of how VR is tolerated and experienced by the ABI population. If proven effective, the study can contribute to new rehabilitation methods that persons with ABI can utilize in a home setting, after the post-acute rehabilitation has ended.

Rating of pre-injury symptoms over time in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: the good-old-days bias revisited

OBJECTIVE

Post-concussion syndrome (PCS) occurs following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Patients with mTBI are often assessed using self-report instruments that rely on perception of current symptoms compared to how they felt and functioned pre-injury. The objective was to examine reliability of patients' post-injury reporting of their pre-injury symptoms.

METHODS

We included two control groups (trauma patients without brain injury history and healthy controls) who were recruited at an outpatient surgical clinic and among the working and social environment of the researchers, respectively. The Head Injury Symptom Checklist (HISC) was used to assess pre-injury and current symptoms at four time points post injury. We included 836 patients with mTBIs, 191 trauma patients without brain injury history, and 100 healthy controls.

RESULTS

Patients with mTBI reported significantly more pre-injury symptoms than both control groups (p < .001). Forty-five percent of patients with mTBI were inconsistent in their pre-injury ratings across four assessments. Patients with post-injury PCS reported much greater pre-injury symptoms and were more often inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Accurately assessing PCS by comparing pre with post-injury complaints is difficult, and may have implications for diagnosis when using self-report instruments. Therefore, post-injury PCS diagnosis should be interpreted with caution and PCS should ideally be examined using clinical examination.