The human brain is constantly bombarded with both external and internal sensory stimulation.Efficient registration and modulation of this sensory stimulation allows us to adapt our behavior to the continuous changes in the environment which is fundamental to human cognition. Acquired brain injury can affect sensory processing resulting in an atypical response to sensory stimulation

Many activities in daily life rely on the ability to continuously keep attention on task requirements. Patients with acquired brain injury often suffer from deficits in sustained attention that impact quality of life and complicate rehabilitation. The sustained attention to response task (SART) is a commonly used go/no-go task in the assessment of sustained attention. However, its feasibility for patients with acquired brain injury could be questioned considering deficits in alphanumerical processing following brain damage. We investigated whether a SART with sinusoidal gratings instead of digits can be used to assess sustained attention. The Gratings SART and Digits SART were administered in a random and fixed sequence to 48 cognitively healthy participants. Performance of the neurotypical individuals on the random and fixed Gratings SART was only moderately different from and correlated with performance on the random and fixed Digits SART. As a proof of concept, the SARTs were also administered to 11 cases with acquired brain injury. Performance in the random and fixed variants of both the Gratings SART and Digits SART was sensitive to cognitive impairments of cases with acquired brain injury. In conclusion, the SART with sinusoidal gratings holds promise as a tool to (re-)assess sustained attention in clinical practice.Further research is critical to investigate whether its performance accurately predicts sustained attention in daily life since we failed to find a significant correlation between performance on any of the SARTs and a self-reported measure of sustained attention.

Background and Purpose. The Oxford Cognitive Screen is a stroke-specific screen to evaluate attention, executive functions, memory, praxis, language, and numeric cognition. It was originally validated in England for acute stroke patients. In this study, we examined the psychometric properties of the Dutch OCS (OCS-NL). Methods. A total of 193 (99 acute stroke unit, 94 rehabilitation unit) patients were included in our study. A subset of patients (n=128) completed a retest with the parallel version of the OCS-NL. Results. First, we did not find evidence for a difference in prevalence of impairment between patients in the acute stroke versus rehabilitation unit on all but one of the subtests. For praxis, we observed a 14% lower prevalence of impairment in the rehabilitation than the acute stroke unit. Second, the parallel-form reliability ranged from weak to excellent across subtests. Third, in stroke patients below age 60, the OCS-NL had a 92% sensitivity relative to the MoCA, while the MoCA had a 55% sensitivity relative to the OCS-NL. Last, although left-hemispheric stroke patients performed worse on almost all MoCA subdomains, they performed similarly to right-hemispheric stroke patients on non-language domains on the OCS-NL. Conclusions. Our results suggest that the OCS-NL is a reliable cognitive screen that can be used in acute stroke and rehabilitation units. The OCS-NL may be more sensitive to detect cognitive impairment in young stroke patients and less likely to underestimate cognitive abilities in left-hemispheric stroke patients than the MoCA.