↓ Skip to main content

Computer-Based Cognitive Training for Executive Functions after Stroke: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Computer-Based Cognitive Training for Executive Functions after Stroke: A Systematic Review
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00150
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renate M. van de Ven, Jaap M. J. Murre, Dick J. Veltman, Ben A. Schmand

Abstract

Stroke commonly results in cognitive impairments in working memory, attention, and executive function, which may be restored with appropriate training programs. Our aim was to systematically review the evidence for computer-based cognitive training of executive dysfunctions. Studies were included if they concerned adults who had suffered stroke or other types of acquired brain injury, if the intervention was computer training of executive functions, and if the outcome was related to executive functioning. We searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. Study quality was evaluated based on the CONSORT Statement. Treatment effect was evaluated based on differences compared to pre-treatment and/or to a control group. Twenty studies were included. Two were randomized controlled trials that used an active control group. The other studies included multiple baselines, a passive control group, or were uncontrolled. Improvements were observed in tasks similar to the training (near transfer) and in tasks dissimilar to the training (far transfer). However, these effects were not larger in trained than in active control groups. Two studies evaluated neural effects and found changes in both functional and structural connectivity. Most studies suffered from methodological limitations (e.g., lack of an active control group and no adjustment for multiple testing) hampering differentiation of training effects from spontaneous recovery, retest effects, and placebo effects. The positive findings of most studies, including neural changes, warrant continuation of research in this field, but only if its methodological limitations are addressed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 201 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 14%
Researcher 27 13%
Student > Master 27 13%
Student > Bachelor 25 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 39 19%
Unknown 45 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 26%
Neuroscience 37 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 8%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 50 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#12,756,718
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,496
of 7,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,305
of 299,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#95
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.