A comparison of two personalization and adaptive cognitive rehabilitation approaches: a randomized controlled trial with chronic stroke patients

• Autor(a) principal: Faria, Ana Lúcia
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Pinho, Maria Salomé, Bermúdez I Badia, Sergi
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10316/106324; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-020-00691-5
• topic: Cognitive rehabilitation; Virtual reality; Stroke; Ecological validity; Aged; Cognition Disorders; Executive Function; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neuropsychological Tests; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy

Paper-and-pencil tasks are still widely used for cognitive rehabilitation despite the proliferation of new computer-based methods, like VR-based simulations of ADL's. Studies have established construct validity of VR assessment tools with their paper-and-pencil version by demonstrating significant associations with their traditional construct-driven measures. However, VR rehabilitation intervention tools are mostly developed to include mechanisms such as personalization and adaptation, elements that are disregarded in their paper-and-pencil counterparts, which is a strong limitation of comparison studies. Here we compare the clinical impact of a personalized and adapted paper-and-pencil training and a content equivalent and more ecologically valid VR-based ADL's simulation. Methods: We have performed a trial with 36 stroke patients comparing Reh@City v2.0 (adaptive cognitive training through everyday tasks VR simulations) with Task Generator (TG: content equivalent and adaptive paper-and-pencil training). The intervention comprised 12 sessions, with a neuropsychological assessment pre, post-intervention and follow-up, having as primary outcomes: general cognitive functioning (assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment - MoCA), attention, memory, executive functions and language specific domains. Results: A within-group analysis revealed that the Reh@City v2.0 improved general cognitive functioning, attention, visuospatial ability and executive functions. These improvements generalized to verbal memory, processing speed and self-perceived cognitive deficits specific assessments. TG only improved in orientation domain on the MoCA, and specific processing speed and verbal memory outcomes. However, at follow-up, processing speed and verbal memory improvements were maintained, and a new one was revealed in language. A between-groups analysis revealed Reh@City v2.0 superiority in general cognitive functioning, visuospatial ability, and executive functions on the MoCA. Conclusions: The Reh@City v2.0 intervention with higher ecological validity revealed higher effectiveness with improvements in different cognitive domains and self-perceived cognitive deficits in everyday life, and the TG intervention retained fewer cognitive gains for longer. Trial registration: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02857803. Registered 5 August 2016,