Untitled

Abstract

The evaluation of everyday memory (EM) was reviewed and reconceptualized. EM has established new objectives of study and the development of new methods to reach these objectives. At the basic level, this approach has already produced important discoveries and the development of new principles about memory and functioning. At the clinical level, this new area of investigation has resulted in evaluating deficits of EM, which is defined as what daily life functions remain impaired after a deficit pathology has occurred. A type of evaluation has evolved that is oriented toward treatment and extremely useful in designing rehabilitation programs for individuals with alterations in memory.

Virtual reality for the assessment and rehabilitation of neglect: where are we now? A 6-year review update

“…USN presents with a complex and heterogeneous set of manifestations and no assessment tool nor rehabilitative training alone could comprehensively address this condition (Menon and Korner-Bitensky 2004 ; Pedroli et al, 2015 ; Ogourtsova et al, 2019 , 2018b ). Furthermore, both employ measures and tasks which often lack sensitivity, standardization, and ecological validity, thus fail to evaluate how patients perform relevant tasks in their daily environment (Perez-Garcia et al, 1998 ; Azouvi et al, 2003 ; Tsirlin et al, 2009 ; Levick, 2010 ; Pallavicini et al, 2015a ; Ogourtsova et al, 2019 , 2018a , 2018b ). Regardless of the method used, early assessment and prompt rehabilitation are crucial for USN patients and could improve their behavioral and socio-cognitive outcomes: this, in turn, would reflect a decreased hospitalization rate and reduced healthcare assistance costs.…”

Assessment and rehabilitation of neglect using virtual reality: a systematic review

“…Computerized tests are able to identify subtle deficits that a static paper-and-pencil test might miss. Moreover, the traditional methods may lack ecological validity (which is crucial for rehabilitation) (Perez-Garcia et al, 1998 ; Levick, 2010 ), and there is often no correspondence between performance at the task and performance in real life (Eslinger et al, 1992 , 2004 ; Vriezen et al, 2001 ). Finally, these protocols are time-consuming and tedious both for therapists and patients because people suffering from UNS also often experience anosognosia, meaning that they are unaware of their disability.…”

Subjective memory measures: metamemory questionnaires currently in use

“…Structured memory questionnaires were developed to examine the connection between beliefs and behaviour, age-related memory decline, and memory complaints in clinical settings (Cavanaugh et al, 1998;Crook et al, 1992;Herrmann, 1982). Additionally, it was expected that questionnaires would provide an efficient alternative to observational field work and a structured ecological approach to assessing everyday memory (Garcia et al, 1998;Herrmann, 1982). Given the complexity of memory, various questionnaires have been devised to examine different types of memory and for specific target groups (Gilewski & Zelinski, 1986;Herrmann, 1982).…”

“…While the EMQ can be administered to both patients and relatives, the MCS is the only measure that contains a separate companion version (MCS-B) and also examines the impact of memory problems on daily activities (Sunderland et al, 1983;Vale et al, 2012). This can be beneficial where memory impairment impacts ability to respond and to understand the real world implications of memory problems (Garcia et al, 1998;Sugden et al, 2021;van der Werf & Vos, 2011). Finally, there are different response scales, target items, and questionnaire lengths across these measures (Table 2).…”