↓ Skip to main content

Atypical Within-Session Motor Procedural Learning after Traumatic Brain Injury but Well-Preserved Between-Session Procedural Memory Consolidation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Atypical Within-Session Motor Procedural Learning after Traumatic Brain Injury but Well-Preserved Between-Session Procedural Memory Consolidation
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Korman, Sharon Shaklai, Keren Cisamariu, Carmit Gal, Rinatia Maaravi-Hesseg, Ishay Levy, Ofer Keren, Avi Karni, Yaron Sacher

Abstract

Using the finger-to-thumb opposition sequence (FOS) learning task, we characterized motor skill learning in sub-acute patients hospitalized for rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Ten patients (Trained TBI) and 11 healthy participants (Trained Healthy) were trained using a multi-session protocol: a single session was afforded in the first week of the study, and four daily sessions were afforded during the second week. Intensity of practice was adapted to patients. Performance speed and accuracy were tested before and after each session. Retention was tested 1 month later. Ten patients (Control TBI) had no FOS training and were tested only at the beginning and the end of the 6 week period. Although baseline performance on the FOS was very slow, all three phases of skill learning found in healthy adults (acquisition, between-session consolidation gains, and long-term retention) could be identified in patients with TBI. However, their time-course of learning was atypical. The Trained TBI group improved in speed about double the spontaneous improvements observed in the Control TBI group, with no speed-accuracy tradeoff. Normalized to their initial performance on the FOS, the gains accrued by the Trained TBI group after a first training were comparable to those accrued by healthy adults. Only during the second week with daily training, the rate of improvement of the Trained TBI group lagged behind that of the Trained Healthy group, due to increasing within-sessions losses in performance speed; no such losses were found in healthy participants. The Functional Independence Measure scores at the start of the study correlated with the total gains attained at the end of the study; no correlations were found with severity of injury or explicit memory impairments. Despite within-sessions losses in performance, which we propose reflect cognitive fatigue, training resulted in robust overall learning and long-term retention in patients with moderate-severe TBI. Given that the gains in performance evolved mainly between sessions, as delayed, offline, gains, our results suggest that memory consolidation processes can be effectively engaged in patients with TBI. However, practice protocols and schedules may need to be optimized to better engage the potential for long-term plasticity in these patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Master 7 12%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Neuroscience 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,581,651
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,095
of 7,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#329,815
of 440,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#135
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,192 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 440,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.