Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:15:08.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquired Brain Injury Results in Specific Impairment of Planning Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

Connie Shears  and
Mary Gauvain
Connie Shears*
Affiliation:
Chapman University, Orange, California, USA
Mary Gauvain
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside, California, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Connie Shears, PhD, Associate Professor, Psychology Department, Chapman University, One University Drive, Orange, CA 92866, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Assessment of executive functions, such as planning, often relies on tasks such as the Tower of Hanoi, which assess plan execution but not planning knowledge. Survivors of brain injury may perform within normal ranges on plan execution tasks yet have profound deficits in planning knowledge required for daily life. We examined survivors of brain injury and non-injured participants on an errand-planning task, to assess planning knowledge, and on a reading comprehension task, to distinguish inference-based knowledge of planning versus physical cause and effect. Errand-planning performance discriminated survivors of brain injury from non-injured participants. Additionally, survivors with higher scores performed similarly to non-injured participants on both inference tasks, whereas survivors with lower scores did not discriminate these two types of inferences. Findings suggest that the errand-planning task may be a useful measure of planning comprehension for survivors of brain injury and suggest a cognitive retraining strategy.

Keywords

brain injuryplanning knowledgeinference processeserrand-planning task
Type
Articles
Information
Brain Impairment , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 28 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chiarello, C., Shears, C., & Lund, K. (1999). Imageability and distributional typicality measures of nouns and verbs in contemporary English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 603–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J.D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). Psyscope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, S., Sirigu, A., Lehericy, S., van de Moortele, P.F., Pillon, B., Grafman, J., . . . LeBihan, D. (1999). Distinct prefrontal activations in processing sequence at the sentence and script level: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1469–1476.Google Scholar
Das, J.P, Kar, B.C., & Parrila, R.K. (1996). Cognitive planning: The psychological basis of intelligent behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Driver, J., Haggard, P., & Shallice, T. (Eds) (2008). Mental processes in the human brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goel, V., & Grafman, J. (1995). Are the frontal lobes implicated in planning functions? Interpreting data from the Tower of Hanoi. Neuropsychologia, 33, 623–642.Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., Millis, K.K., & Zwaan, R.A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 48, 163–189.Google Scholar
Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, 275–310.Google Scholar
Kennedy, M.R.T., Coelho, C., Turkstra, L., Ylvisaker, M., Sohlberg, M.M., Yorkston, K., . . . Kan, P.F. (2008). Intervention for executive functions after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review, meta-analysis and clinical recommendations. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 18 (3), 257–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, B., Schweizer, T.A., O’Connor, C., Turner, G., Gillingham, S., Stuss, D.T., . . . Robertson, I.H. (2011). Rehabilitation of executive functioning in patients with frontal lobe brain damage with Goal Management Training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5–9. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00009.Google Scholar
Peach, R.K. (2013). The cognitive basis for sentence planning difficulties in discourse after traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22, 285–297.Google Scholar
Perez, S.M., & Gauvain, M. (2005). The role of child emotionality in child behavior and maternal instruction on planning tasks. Social Development, 14, 250–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radziszewska, B., & Rogoff, B. (1988). Influence of adult and peer collaborators on children's planning skills. Developmental Psychology, 6, 840–848.Google Scholar
Rowe, J.B., Owen, A.M., Johnsrude, I.S., & Passingham, R.E. (2001). Imaging the mental components of a planning task. Neuropsychologia, 39, 315–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, L., Penna, S., & Novack, T. (2009). Factors contributing to performance on the Rey Complex Figure Test in individuals with traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23 (2), 255–267.Google Scholar
Shallice, T., & Burgess, P.W. (1991). Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain, 114, 727–741.Google Scholar
Shears, C., & Chiarello, C. (2004). Knowledge-based inferences are not general. Discourse Processes, 38, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shum, D., Gill, H., Banks, M., Maujean, A., Friffin, J., & Ward, H. (2009). Planning ability following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: Performance on a 4-disk version of the Tower of London. Brain Impairment, 10 (3), 320–324.Google Scholar
Sira, C.S. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the twelve elements test and other commonly used measures of executive function. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (accession order no. 2009–99020–364).Google Scholar
Sirigu, A., Cohen, L., Zalla, T., Vanechkout, P., Pillon, B., Dubois, B., & Agid, Y. (1998). Distinct frontal regions for processing sentence syntax and story grammar. Cortex, 34, 297–310.Google Scholar
Szepkouski, G.M., Gauvain, M., & Carbery, M. (1994). The development of planning skills in children with and without mental retardation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 187–206.Google Scholar
Timmerman, M.E., & Brouwer, W.H. (1999). Slow information processing after very severe closed head injury: Impaired access to declarative knowledge and intact application and acquisition of procedural knowledge. Neuropsychologia, 37, 467–478.Google Scholar
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Suh, S.Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1–25.Google Scholar
Zalla, T., Plassiart, C., Pillon, B., Grafman, J., & Sirigu, A., (2001). Action planning in a virtual context after prefrontal cortex damage. Neuropsychologia, 39, 759–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar