Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:48:05.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indices of slowness of information processing in head injury patients: Tests for selective attention related to ERP latencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

JACOBA M. SPIKMAN ,
JOUKJE VAN DER NAALT ,
TIEMEN W. VAN WEERDEN  and
ADRIAAN H. VAN ZOMEREN
JACOBA M. SPIKMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Academic Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands Rehabilitation Centre Friesland, Beetsterzwaag, The Netherlands
JOUKJE VAN DER NAALT
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Academic Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands
TIEMEN W. VAN WEERDEN
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Academic Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands
ADRIAAN H. VAN ZOMEREN
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Academic Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We explored the relation between neuropsychological (attention tests involving time constraints) and neurophysiological (N2 and P3 event-related potential (ERP) latencies) indices of slowness of information processing after closed head injury (CHI). A group of 44 CHI patients performed worse than healthy controls on most neuropsychological indices, and had significantly longer ERP latencies. Significant correlations between neuropsychological measures and ERP latencies were found only for the 3 subtasks of the Stroop test. In additional multiple regression analyses P3 latency appeared the best predictor in Stroop Color only. A possible explanation is that stimulus evaluation processes comprise a relatively large part of performance on this subtask. In Stroop Color-Word, response related processes are supposed to play a greater role, reducing the role of the preceding input related processes. The absence of significant correlations between P3 latency and scores on the other attention tests suggests a relatively small role of stimulus evaluation processes in these tasks, implying that these tasks are not sensitive to slowness of these processes. The Stroop test appears to be the only attention test administered in which slowness in stimulus evaluation processes requiring selective attention contributes significantly to the delay in final performance on the task. (JINS, 2004, 10, 851–861.)

Keywords

Selective attentionEvent-related potentialsHead injury
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 10 , Issue 6 , October 2004 , pp. 851 - 861
Copyright
© 2004 The International Neuropsychological Society

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

REFERENCES

Bokura, H., Yamaguchi, S., & Kobayashi, S. (2001). Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112, 2224–2232.Google Scholar
Brouwer, W.H. (1985). Limitations of attention after closed head injury. Doctoral dissertation, State University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bruin, K.J., Wijers, A.A., & Staveren, A.S.J. van (2001). Response priming in a go/nogo task: Do we have to explain the go/nogo N2 effect in terms of response activations instead of inhibition? Clinical Neurophysiology, 112, 1660–1671.Google Scholar
Campbell, K.B., Suffield, J.B., & Deacon, D.L. (1990). Electrophysiological assessment of cognitive disorder in closed head-injured patients. In P.M. Rossini & F. Mauguiere (Eds.), New trends and advanced techniques in clinical neurophysiology (pp. 202–215). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Campbell, K.B. & de Lugt, D.R. (1995). Event-related potential measures of cognitive deficits following closed head injury. In R. Johnson, Jr., & J.C. Baron (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology, Volume 10 (pp. 269–298). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Clark, C.R., O'Hanlon, A.P., Wright, M.J., & Geffen, M.G. (1992). Event related potential measurement of deficits in information processing following moderate to severe closed head injury. Brain Injury, 6, 509–520.Google Scholar
Curry, S.H., Cummins, B.H., Eames, P., Rogers, D., & Chaudhry-Dijkerman, S. (1996). The use of P300 as a mental chronometer in closed head injury patients. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 46, 283–300.Google Scholar
Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise! … Surprise? Psychophysiology, 18, 493–513.Google Scholar
Donchin, E., Karis, D., Bashore, T.R., Coles, M.G.H., & Gratton, G. (1986a). Cognitive psychophysiology and human information processing. In M.G.H. Coles, E. Donchin, & S. Porges (Eds.), Psychophysiology: Systems, processes and applications (pp. 244–266). New York: Guilford Press.
Donchin, E., Kramer, A.F., & Wickens, C.D. (1986b). Applications of brain event-related potentials to problems in engineering psychology. In M.G.H. Coles, E. Donchin, & S. Porges (Eds.), Psychophysiology: Systems, processes and applications (pp. 702–778). New York: Guilford Press.
Donchin, E. & Coles, M.G.H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 355–372.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., & Hohnsbein, J. (1999). ERP components in go/nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 101, 267–291.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., & Hohnsbein, J. (2002). Inhibition-related ERP components: Variation with modality, age, and time-on-task. Journal of Psychophysiology, 16, 167–175.Google Scholar
Ferraro, F.R. (1996). Cognitive slowing in closed-head injury. Brain and Cognition, 32, 429–440.Google Scholar
Goodin, D.S., Desmedt, J., Maurer, K., & Nuwer, M.R. (1994). IFCN recommended standards for long-latency auditory event related potentials. Report of an IFCN committee. Electroencephalography Clinical Neurophysiology, 91, 18–20.Google Scholar
Grön, G. (1996). Cognitive slowing in patients with acquired brain damage: An experimental approach. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 18, 406–415.Google Scholar
Gronwall, D. & Sampson, H. (1974). The psychological effects of concussion. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.
Heinze, H.J., Münte, T.F., Gobiet, W., Niemann, H., & Ruff, R.M. (1992). Parallel and serial visual search after closed head injury: Electrophysiological evidence for perceptual dysfunctions. Neuropsychologia, 30, 495–514.Google Scholar
Hillyard, S.A. & Kutas, M. (1983). Electrophysiology of cognitive processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 33–61.Google Scholar
Hillyard, S.A. & Picton, T.W. (1987). Electrophysiology of cognition. In V.B. Mountcastle, F. Plum, & S.R. Geiger (Eds.), Handbook of physiology, Vol. V. Higher functions of the brain, Part 2 (pp. 519–584). Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society.
Hillyard, S.A., Mangun, G.R., Woldorff, M.G., & Luck, S.J. (1995). Neural systems mediating selective attention. In M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 665–681). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keren, O., Ben-Dror, S., Stern, M.J., Goldberg, G., & Groswasser, Z. (1998). Event-related potentials as an index of cognitive function during recovery from severe closed head injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 13, 15–30.Google Scholar
Kok, A. (1990). Internal and external control: A two-factor model of amplitude change of event-related potentials. Acta Psychologica, 74, 203–236.Google Scholar
Kok, A. (1997). Event-related -potential (ERP) reflections of mental resources: A review and synthesis. Biological Psychology, 45, 19–56.Google Scholar
Kok, A. (2000). Age-related changes in involuntary and voluntary attention as reflected in components of the event-related potential (ERP). Biological Psychology, 54, 107–143.Google Scholar
Mazzini, L., Zaccala, M., Gareri, F., Giordano, A., & Angelino, E. (2001). Archives of Physical and Medical Rehabilitation, 82, 57–65.
McCarthy, G. & Donchin, E. (1981). A metric of thought: A comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science, 21, 171–186.Google Scholar
Picton, T.W. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 9, 456–479.Google Scholar
Ponsford, J. & Kinsella, G. (1992). Attentional deficits following closed head injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14, 822–838.Google Scholar
Potter, D.D., Bassett, M.R.A., Jory, S.H., & Barrett, K. (2001). Changes in event-related potentials in a three-stimulus auditory oddball task after mild head injury. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1464–1472.Google Scholar
Potter, D.D., Jory, S.H., Bassett, M.R.A., Barrett, K., & Mychalkiw, W. (2002). Effect of mild head injury on event-related potential correlates of Stroop task performance. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 828–837.Google Scholar
Reinvang, I., Norby, H., & Nielsen, C.S. (2000). Information processing deficits in head injury assessed with ERP's reflecting early and late processing stages. Neuropsychologia, 38, 995–1005.Google Scholar
Reitan, R.M. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271–276.Google Scholar
Rugg, M.D., Cowan, C.P., Nagy, M.E., Milner, A.D., Jacobson, I., & Brooks, D.N. (1988). Event-related potentials from closed head injury patients in an auditory “Oddball” task: Evidence of dysfunction in stimulus categorisation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 51, 691–698.Google Scholar
Russell, W.R. (1971). The traumatic amnesias. London: Oxford University Press.
Sangal, R.B. & Sangal, J.M. (1996). Closed head injury patients with mild cognitive complaints without neurological or psychiatric findings have abnormal visual P300 latencies. Biological Psychiatry, 39, 305–307.Google Scholar
Schmitter-Edgecombe, M.E., Marks, W., Fahy, J.F., & Long, C.J. (1992). Effects of severe closed-head injury on three stages of information processing. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14, 717–737.Google Scholar
Shum, D.H., Mc Farland, K., Bain, J.D., & Humphreys, M.S. (1990). Effects of closed-head injury on attentional processes: An information processing stage analysis. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12, 247–264.Google Scholar
Spikman, J.M., van Zomeren, A.H., & Deelman, B.G. (1996). Deficits of attention after closed-head injury: Slowness only? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 18, 755–767.Google Scholar
Spikman, J.M., Timmerman, M.E., van Zomeren, A.H., & Deelman, B.G. (1999). Recovery versus retest effects in attention after closed head injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21, 585–605.Google Scholar
Spikman, J.M., Kiers, H.A.L., Deelman, B.G., & van Zomeren, A.H. (2001). Construct validity of concepts of attention in healthy controls and patients with CHI. Brain and Cognition, 47, 446–470.Google Scholar
Stockx, L.C. & Gaillard, A.W.K. (1986). Task and driving performance of patients with a severe concussion of the brain. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8, 421–436.Google Scholar
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.Google Scholar
Stuss, D.T, Stethem, L.L., Hugenholtz, H., & Richard, M.T. (1989a). Traumatic brain injury: A comparison of three clinical tests and analysis of recovery. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 3, 145–156.Google Scholar
Stuss, D.T., Stethem, L.L., Hugenholtz, H., Picton, T., Pivik, J., & Richard, M.T. (1989b). Reaction time after head injury: Fatigue, divided and focused attention, and consistency of performance. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 52, 742–748.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
Unsal, A. & Segalowitz, S.J. (1995). Sources of P300 attenuation after head injury: Single-trial amplitude, latency jitter, and EEG power. Psychophysiology, 32, 249–256.Google Scholar
van Zomeren, A.H. (1981). Reaction time and attention after closed head injury. Doctoral dissertation, State University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
van Zomeren, A.H. & Brouwer, W.H. (1994). Clinical neuropsychology of attention. New York: Oxford University Press.
van Zomeren, A.H., Brouwer, W.H., & Deelman, B.G. (1984). Attentional deficits: The riddles of selectivity, speed and alertness. In N. Brooks (Ed.), Closed head injury; Psychological, social and family consequences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
van Zomeren, A.H. & Deelman, B.G. (1976). Differential effects of simple and choice reaction time after closed head injury. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 41, 452–457.Google Scholar
van Zomeren, A.H. & Deelman, B.G. (1978). Long term recovery of simple and choice reaction after closed head injury. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 79, 81–90.Google Scholar
Warren, L.R. & Marsh, G.R. (1979). Changes in event-related potentials during processing of stroop stimuli. International Journal of Neurosciences, 9, 217–223.Google Scholar