Objective: Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) frequently results in memory impairment causing significant disabilities in daily life and is therefore a critical target for cognitive rehabilitation. Current understanding of brain plasticity has led to novel insights in remediation-oriented approaches for the rehabilitation of memory deficits. We will describe 3 of these approaches that have emerged in the last decade: Virtual Reality (VR) training, Computer-Based Cognitive Retraining (CBCR) and Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NBS) and evaluate its effectiveness. Methods:A systematic literature search was completed in regard to studies evaluating interventions aiming to improve the memory function after ABI. Information concerning study content and reported effectiveness were extracted. Quality of the studies and methods were evaluated.Results: A total of 786 studies were identified, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of those studies represent the VR technique, 7 studies represent CBCR and 5 studies NBS. All 3 studies found a significant improvement of the memory function after VR-based training, however these studies are considered preliminary. All 7 studies have shown that CBCR can be effective in improving memory function in patients suffering from ABI. Four studies of the 5 did not find significant improvement of the memory function after the use of NBS in ABI patients. Conclusion:On the basis of this review, CBCR is considered the most promising novel approach of the last decade because of the positive results in improving memory function post ABI. The number of studies representing VR were limited and the methodological quality low, therefore the results should be considered preliminary. The studies representing NBS did not detect evidence for the use of NBS in improving memory function.

Background Visuo‐spatial neglect (VSN) is generally assessed with neuropsychological paper‐and‐pencil tasks, which are often not sensitive enough to detect mild and/or well‐compensated VSN. It is of utmost importance to develop dynamic tasks, resembling the dynamics of daily living. Objective A simulated driving task was used to assess (1) differences in performance (i.e., position on the road and magnitude of sway) between patients with left‐ and right‐sided VSN, recovered VSN, without VSN, and healthy participants; (2) the relation between average position and VSN severity; and (3) its diagnostic accuracy in relation to traditional tasks. Methods Stroke inpatients were tested with a cancellation task, the Catherine Bergego Scale and the simulated driving task. Results Patients with left‐sided VSN and recovered VSN deviated more regarding position on the road compared to patients without VSN. The deviation was larger in patients with more severe VSN. Regarding diagnostic accuracy, 29% of recovered VSN patients and 6% of patients without VSN did show abnormal performance on the simulated driving task. The sensitivity was 52% for left‐sided VSN. Right‐sided VSN was not well detected, probably due to the asymmetric layout. Conclusions Based on these results, the simulated driving task should not be the only task to assess VSN, especially in its current form. Given the heterogenic nature of VSN, the assessment should always consist of several tasks varying in nature and complexity and include a dynamic task to detect mild and/or recovered VSN. A symmetric design should be used when designing novel tasks to assess right‐sided VSN.

Background: The Edinburgh cognitive and behavioral ALS screen (ECAS) was developed specifically to detect cognitive and behavioral changes in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Differences with regard to normative data of different (language) versions of neuropsychological tests such as the ECAS exist. Objective: To derive norms for the Dutch version of the ECAS. Methods: Normative data were derived from a large sample of 690 control subjects and cognitive profiles were compared between a matched sample of 428 patients with ALS and 428 control subjects. Results: Age, level of education, and sex were significantly associated with performance on the ECAS in the normative sample. ECAS data were not normally distributed and therefore normative data were expressed as percentile ranks. The comparison of ECAS scores between patients and control subjects demonstrated that patients obtained significantly lower scores for language, executive function, verbal fluency, and memory, which is in line with the established cognitive profile of ALS. Conclusion: For an accurate interpretation of ECAS results, it is important to derive normative data in large samples with nonparametric methods. The present normative data provide healthcare professionals with an accurate estimate of how common or uncommon patients' ECAS scores are and provide a useful supplement to existing cut-off scores.