Effect of a combined approach to cognitive rehabilitation in post-stroke patients

Change of cognitive functions after stroke with rehabilitation systems

“…The analysis of the particular group results of the latter study showed significant changes in the fields of memory and spatial attention [21]. The above–mentioned findings are supported by systemic reviews performed by other scientists who suggested that computer–based cognitive rehabilitation is an effective cognitive function training tool for stroke patients [12, 22, 23, 24]. The findings of the present study revealed significant positive changes in the cognitive functions in the trial groups assessed before and after the trial (p<0.001); however, paired comparison analysis of the groups after the trial showed significant differences between the T1 and T2 groups (p<0.05), and between the T1 and T3 groups (p<0.05) reflected in MMSE test results.…”

“…As the scientific literature suggests, there is a wide variety of CCT programmes and VE rehabilitation systems aimed at training cognitive functions and offering different levels of duration and intensity [7, 12]. In the present trial, the interactive rehabilitation means were practised for four weeks; meanwhile, the duration in other trials varied from two weeks to three months or longer [12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29]. Researchers indicated the need for an appropriate practise duration for the training to be more effective, since a short-termed cognitive training usually renders only a brief and temporary effect [10, 12].…”

“…Recommendations for cognitive rehabilitation are rather general and usually differ at a low evidence–based level [17]. Most studies that analyse the applicability of CCT programmes or VE rehabilitation systems concentrate on the training of specific cognitive fields such as memory [23, 24, 25, 26], attention concentration [23, 25, 27], or other functions [24]. The present study focused on assessment of changes in overall cognitive functions.…”

Memory rehabilitation: restorative, specific knowledge acquisition, compensatory, and holistic approaches

“…Similar studies have highlighted improvements on cognitive tests when using CACR dedicated software such as RehaCom and CogMed in comparison with non-computerized approaches for individuals with ABI (De Luca, et al 2018a, b;Lebowitz et al 2012;Ressner et al 2018;Yoo et al 2015). However, limited effect on activities of daily living, small sample sizes, limited or no follow-up, and outcome measures that may not reflect ecologically relevant tasks demonstrate that there should be some caution when considering the effect of this type of CACR on functional outcomes and transfer of gains to realworld settings (De Luca, et al 2018a, b;Fernandez et al 2017;Ressner et al 2018;Yoo et al 2015).…”

“…Thus, the authors suggest the superiority of CACR compared to a non-computerized approach, perhaps due to the incorporation of immediate feedback to improve self-awareness, higher levels of stimulation through improved stimuli quality and presentation to improve attention and focus, and dynamic adaptations to individual needs that increase motivation (Fernandez et al 2017). Similar studies have highlighted improvements on cognitive tests when using CACR dedicated software such as RehaCom and CogMed in comparison with non-computerized approaches for individuals with ABI (De Luca, et al 2018a, b;Lebowitz et al 2012;Ressner et al 2018;Yoo et al 2015). However, limited effect on activities of daily living, small sample sizes, limited or no follow-up, and outcome measures that may not reflect ecologically relevant tasks demonstrate that there should be some caution when considering the effect of this type of CACR on functional outcomes and transfer of gains to realworld settings (De Luca, et al 2018a, b;Fernandez et al 2017;Ressner et al 2018;Yoo et al 2015).…”