Abstract
Virtual reality (VR)-based technologies are one of the emerging tools that appear to have great potential for use in cognitive rehabilitation. However, it still is unclear how brain capacities are involved and what is the best approach to such training. Quantitative aspects are encouraging because some improvements have been shown after few training sessions. By contrast, qualitative design of VR tools is more questionable. Choice of errorless or error-full designs may depend on the severity of disturbances. Most VR tools emphasize the explicit component of tasks; even procedural aspects comprise the main strength of VR retraining programs. VR and augmented reality tools give various stimuli and indicators, but their best modalities stay unclear, given that most data are coming from learning studies in normal subjects more than rehabilitation studies in brain-injured patients. Specific studies to explore the impact of sensorial transmodal effects and emotional involvement in VR tasks are required. Rehabilitation protocols utilizing virtual environments are moving from single applications to cognitive impairment (i.e., alertness, memory, neglect, language, executive functions) to comprehensive rehabilitation programs, with the aim of achieving efficient improvement in autonomy and transfer of benefits in real life conditions. A core issue that presents challenges to rehabilitation is decreased ability of persons with brain injury to transfer learning from one situation or context to another. The multi-context approach to cognitive rehabilitation proposes treatment methods for teaching the use of strategies across a wide range of meaningful activities, which can promote generalization and enhance functional performance.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Evelyne Klinger whose expertise, understanding, and shared research added considerably to their experience of VR applied to cognitive deficits.
References
1. Rizzo AS, Kim GJ. A SWOT analysis of the field of virtual reality rehabilitation and therapy. Presence 2005;14:119–45.10.1162/1054746053967094Search in Google Scholar
2. Laver KE, George S, Thomas S, Deutsch JE, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;9:CD008349.10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub2Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Klinger E, Weiss PL, Joseph PA. Virtual reality for learning and rehabilitation, In: Didier JP, Bigand E, editors. Rethinking physical and rehabilitation medicine. London: Springer, 2010:203–21.Search in Google Scholar
4. Fuchs P, Arnaldi B, Bourdot P, Burkhardt JM. Le traité de la réalité virtuelle: les applications de la réalité virtuelle, Vol 4. Paris: Presses de l’Ecole des Mines de Paris, 2006 [French].Search in Google Scholar
5. Klinger E. Apports de la réalité virtuelle à la prise en charge des troubles cognitifs et comportementaux. Paris: ENST, 2006:228 [French].Search in Google Scholar
6. Prigatano GP. Anosognosia: clinical and ethical considerations. Curr Opin Neurol 2009;22:606–11.10.1097/WCO.0b013e328332a1e7Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Abreu BC, Toglia JP. Cognitive rehabilitation: a model for occupational therapy. Am J OccupTher 1987;41:439–48.Search in Google Scholar
8. Hudlicka E. Affective game engines: motivation and requirements, proc. 4th International Conference On Foundations of Digital Games. April 26–30, 2009.10.1145/1536513.1536565Search in Google Scholar
9. Kimura M, Robinson RG, Kosier JT. Treatment of cognitive impairment after post stroke depression: a double-blind treatment trial. Stroke 2000;31:1482–6.10.1161/01.STR.31.7.1482Search in Google Scholar
10. Wiart L, Petit H, Joseph PA, Mazaux JM, Barat M. Fluoxetine in early poststroke depression: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Stroke 2000;31:1829–32.10.1161/01.STR.31.8.1829Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Bates B, Choi JY, Duncan PW, Glasberg JJ, Graham GD, Katz RC, et al. Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: Executive Summary. Stroke 2005;36:2049–56.10.1161/01.STR.0000180432.73724.ADSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Cicerone KD, Dahlberg C, Kalmar K, Langenbahn DM, Malec JF, Bergquist TF, et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: recommendations for clinical practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:1596–615.10.1053/apmr.2000.19240Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Cicerone KD, Dahlberg C, Malec JF, Langenbahn DM, Felicetti T, Kneipp S, et al. Evidence based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 1998 through 2002. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:1681–92.10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Grandmaison E, Simard M. A critical review of memory stimulation programs in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2003;15:130–44.10.1176/jnp.15.2.130Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Wilson BA. Cognitive rehabilitation: how it is and how it might be. J Int Neuropsychol 1997;3:487–96.10.1017/S1355617797004876Search in Google Scholar
16. Outpatients Service Trialists. Rehabilitation therapy services for stroke patients living at home: systematic review of randomised trials. Lancet 2004;3:352–56.Search in Google Scholar
17. Robey RR. A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in the treatment of aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998 41:172–87.10.1044/jslhr.4101.172Search in Google Scholar
18. Kelly H, Brady MC, Enderby P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;5:CD000425.10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub2Search in Google Scholar
19. Terrace HS. Discrimination learning with and without “errors”. J Exp Anal Behav 1963;6:1–27.10.1901/jeab.1963.6-1Search in Google Scholar
20. Sharp I, Huang F, Patton J. Visual error augmentation enhances learning in three dimensions. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2011;8:doi:10.1186/1743-0003-8-52.10.1186/1743-0003-8-52Search in Google Scholar
21. Koch K, Schachtzabel C, Wagner G, Reichenbach JR, Sauer H, Schlösser R. The neural correlates of reward-related trial-and-error learning: an fMRI study with a probabilistic learning task. Learn Mem 2008;15:728–32.10.1101/lm.1106408Search in Google Scholar
22. Glisky EL, Schacter DL, Tulving E. Learning and retention of computer-related vocabulary in memory-impaired patients: method of vanishing cues. J Clin Exp Neuropsyc 1986;30:899–910.10.1080/01688638608401320Search in Google Scholar
23. Abel S, Schultz A, Radermacher I, Willmes K, Huber W. Decreasing and increasing cues in naming therapy for aphasia. Aphasiology 2005;19:831–48.10.1080/02687030500268902Search in Google Scholar
24. Tulving E, Thompson DM. Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev 1973;80:352–73.10.1037/h0020071Search in Google Scholar
25. Diesfeldt HF. The importance of encoding instructions and retrieval cues in the assessment of memory in senile dementia. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 1984;3:51–7.10.1016/0167-4943(84)90014-1Search in Google Scholar
26. Nieuwenhuis S, Heslenfeld DJ, von Geusau NJ, Mars RB, Holroyd CB, Yeung N. Activity in human reward-sensitive brain areas is strongly context dependent. Neuroimage 2005;25:1302–9.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.043Search in Google Scholar
27. McClure SM, Berns GS, Montague PR. Temporal prediction errors in a passive learning task activate human striatum. Neuron 2003;38:339–46.10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00154-5Search in Google Scholar
28. Mesulam MM. From sensation to cognition. Brain 1998;121:1013–52.10.1093/brain/121.6.1013Search in Google Scholar
29. Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW. Object recognition. In: Rapp B, editor. The handbook of cognitive neuropsychology: what deficits reveal about the human mind. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2001:45–74.Search in Google Scholar
30. Egeth HE, Yantis S. Visual attention: control, representation, and time course, Annu Rev Psychol 1997;48:269–97.10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.269Search in Google Scholar
31. Sarter M, Givens B, Bruno JP. The cognitive neuroscience of sustained attention: where top-down meets bottom-up. Brain Res Rev 2001;35:146–60.10.1016/S0165-0173(01)00044-3Search in Google Scholar
32. Jacquin-Courtois S, Rode G, Pavani F, O’Shea J, Giard MH, Boisson D, et al. Effect of prism adaptation on left dichotic listening deficit in neglect patients: glasses to hear better? Brain 2010;133:895–908.10.1093/brain/awp327Search in Google Scholar PubMed
33. Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA. Effectiveness of an attentional training program. J Clin Exp Neuropsyc 1987;9:117–30.10.1080/01688638708405352Search in Google Scholar PubMed
34. Brain Injury-Interdisciplinary Special Interest Group (BI-ISIG) of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM). Evidence-Based Recommendations for Cognitive Rehabilitation of Attention after Brain Injury, 2002.Search in Google Scholar
©2014 by De Gruyter
