Cognitive training adaptations -
Please complete the following:. CAMH BrainBuzz - the latest news, groundbreaking discoveries and special features about CAMH research, studies, and the people behind the work. CAMH Foundation - provides updates on the mental health movement and ways you can get involved.
First Name Please input a first name. Last Name Please input a last name. Email Please input an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use for privacy and use of my personal data. Please agree to the Terms of Use. Sign Up.
Thanks for Subscribing. We look forward to keeping you informed, inspired and involved in all things CAMH. Every donation moves us closer to a future where no one is left behind. Give Once Give Monthly. My gift is in memory or honour of someone. I am donating on behalf of an organization.
Other Ways to Give. Join our team Donate. Double steps are characterized by target displacements at movement onset; i. Counterclockwise double steps requiring counterclockwise trajectory modifications are shown for the proximal workspace.
Counterclockwise rotated feedback, requiring clockwise trajectory modifications, is shown for the proximal workspace. The present study applied both the rotated feedback method and the double step method to make the task varied for the participants.
Former studies have shown that both methods achieve similar effects when adaptation is long enough and interfere when applied in the same workspace [ 8 , 15 , 38 ]. The order of the adaptation methods double steps versus rotated feedback and the directions of the trajectory modifications clockwise versus counterclockwise were balanced across participants.
This procedure resulted in four subgroups with six participants each. That means that half of the participants adapted to double steps in the first two tasks, the other half to feedback rotations. Half of the participants adapted their trajectories in the first task clockwise and the second task counterclockwise.
The other half adapted their trajectories in the first task counterclockwise and in the second task clockwise. In the third and fourth adaptation tasks, the other adaptation method was applied and the participants adapted in each workspace to the opposite direction compared to the first two adaptation tasks.
In summary, each participant performed four adaptation tasks. Since the order of the tasks varied between the participants, the first, second, third, and fourth adaptation tasks will be referred to in the following.
Each session started with the basic visuomotor transformation with feedback baseline phase. Next came the visuomotor pre-test without feedback, in which the participants of the intervention group performed reaching movements without cursor feedback.
The session was concluded with a visuomotor post-test without feedback, which was compared to the pre-test without feedback to detect possible aftereffects. The adaptation training was performed between both tests without feedback and is described in the following.
Compared to the baseline phase, the adaptation tasks shown in Fig 1 represent new relationships between hand movement direction in the horizontal plane and the direction of the visual feedback on the screen i. As first shown by Smith et al.
This finding has been confirmed for other types of adaptation, such as the learning of a new angular transformation or saccadic adaptation [ 40 , 41 ].
The procedure for the adaptation training is shown in Fig 2 : Each adaptation task was practiced for three episodes of five movements each. The sequence of four adaptation tasks constituted one block.
One session consisted of the baseline phase, the visuomotor pre-test, six blocks and the visuomotor post-test. In the first session, the angular transformations had a size of 30°. It is well known that adaptation saturates after a few hundred trials. To provide significant adaptation stimuli throughout the intervention, the angular transformation increased after three sessions in 10°-steps from 30° to °.
Two sessions were one to three days apart. The final assessment of cognitive performance cognitive post-test was performed two days after the last intervention.
The participants of the intervention group trained for three episodes of five movements a first adaptation task, then trained for three episodes a second adaptation task and so on.
The four adaptation tasks were practiced in six blocks, which constituted one session. One to three days later, they performed the next training session.
Three sessions were trained with a given angular transformation before it increased by 10°. The learning of an angular visuomotor transformation occurs by adaptation of trajectory planning processes that remaps the movement vector, i. In the present study, the movement direction was measured as the angle between the target vector and the movement vector ms after movement onset initial movement direction.
This assures that movements are not visually corrected because visual feedback needs longer latencies to become effective [ 43 ]. The decision to focus in the analysis on the initial movement direction and not on the end position is supported by findings from Schmitz [ 15 ], who showed that executive functions rather correlate with the adaptation of initial movement directions than with the adaptation of movement endpoints.
The velocity threshold is an experience value, which has shown to be insensitive against small corrective movements of the pen around the starting point. The median direction of five movements one episode was calculated and submitted to the statistical analyses.
Normality distributions were tested with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Furthermore, for the statistical analyses, the algebraic signs of the cognitive post-pre changes were inverted for correct patterns in the Five-Point Test, the variable K from the FAIRTest and the number of correct answers from the Digit Span Test because positive signs reflect a performance increase, whereas in the other tests, negative signs reflect performance increases.
For one participant, the post-pre-data of the Trail Making Test were missing. Therefore, two analyses were performed: One analysis with all tests but without this participant and a second analysis with all participants but without the TMT.
The performance during the baseline phase was compared across all sessions by a three-way ANOVA with the within-subject factors angular transformation 30°, 40°, 50°, 60°, 70°, 80°, 90°, ° , session 1—3 and workspace distal versus proximal.
Visuomotor pre-post changes were analyzed by a four-way ANOVA with the within-subject factors phase pre- versus post-test , angular transformation 30°° , session 1—3 and workspace distal versus proximal. Partial eta-squared ŋ 2 p is reported as the effect size measure.
Sphericity was tested with the Mauchly test. Huynh-Feldt adjustments were applied in case of its significance. The homogeneity of variances was analyzed with the Levene test. Post hoc comparisons were performed with the Newman-Keuls procedure. Finally, a factor analysis based on the principal component method was calculated for the cognitive post-pre-changes.
The varimax rotation was selected as rotation method. It creates a simple structure of the factors by maximizing the squared loadings per factor [ 44 ].
The selection criteria for variables were anti-image correlations larger than 0. Factors with eigenvalues larger than 1 were regarded as meaningful Kaiser-Guttman-criterion. If the eigenvalue of a factor is smaller than 1, it is smaller than the variance of a single standardized variable.
This factor is generally considered insignificant as it can no longer contribute to the data reduction [ 44 ]. The minimal acceptable Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin-criterion was defined as 0. The stability of the factor structure was estimated according to the procedure suggested by Bortz and Schuster [ 44 ].
This procedure considers sample size and minimal factor loading taken into account when interpreting the factors. Each session started with the baseline phase, in which the participants of the intervention group moved the stylus with a mean deviation of This value represents the initial movement direction, i.
Data from an exemplary participant are shown in Fig 3. Depicted are the mean initial movement directions of all episodes of this participant. The baseline performance did not change during the study.
Other effects were not significant. The movement directions in the visuomotor pre- and post-test without feedback deviated from the target directions on average by 0. Neither the pre-post changes nor any other factors were significant. Thus, aftereffects could not be detected. The participant adapted to clockwise cw double steps in the distal workspace, counterclockwise ccw double steps in the proximal workspace, counterclockwise rotated feedback in the distal workspace, and clockwise rotated feedback in the proximal workspace.
Illustrated are the movement directions measured ms after movement onset. Each dot represents the mean of one episode, i. All episode means of the intervention are shown.
The solid blue and orange lines represent the expected values for complete adaptation of movement directions to the angular transformations 30°°. The solid black line near the Abscissa represents the performance during the baseline phase. Fig 3 also shows the adaptation performance of the exemplary participant.
Clockwise adaptation, reflected by negative movement directions, was required in response to clockwise double steps and counterclockwise feedback rotations. Counterclockwise adaptation, reflected by positive movement directions, was required in response to counterclockwise double steps and clockwise feedback rotations.
The increasing values at each of the four adaptation tasks indicate that the participant adapted to all of them.
Furthermore, the data series do not overlap but diverge instead, indicating that this participant was able to switch from clockwise to counterclockwise adaptation and vice versa. In the subsequent analyses, the algebraic signs of the movement directions during clockwise adaptation were inverted to allow comparability between subsequent adaptation tasks.
Fig 4A illustrates the mean adaptation of all participants of the intervention group to the increasing angular transformations. On average, the participants adapted to each angular transformation by 9. Moreover, the main factors Episode, Block and Session were significant, confirming that adaptation occurred in different timescales Fig 4.
A: The size of the angular transformation corresponds to the expected value for complete adaptation. B-D: 65° represents the expected value for complete adaptation. B-D show the mean adaptation progress in different timescales B: episodes, C: blocks, D: sessions averaged across all angular transformations.
Illustrated are between-subject means and standard errors. The significance of the main effects angular transformation, episode, block and session confirms that adaptation progressed significantly over time; despite the switching between the adaptation tasks.
Further analyses confirm that the participants learned to switch predictively: When exposed to the ° angular transformation, the participants directed their first movement in each of the four adaptation tasks on average at 60° SD: 30°.
The participants adapted their movements in response to the increasing transformations; however, adaptation was incomplete.
Concerning the course of adaptation within blocks, the latter differences were larger at the beginning of a block than at the end of a block, i. The main effect order was not significant. Each dot represents the mean and the bars the standard error of all participants of the intervention group in one episode.
All results of the cognitive performance tests are shown in Table 1. In contrast, ANOVAs on the z-transformed post-pre-changes revealed a significant main effect of group: mean post-pre changes, i. The aim of the next analysis was to find out whether the results from the cognitive performance tests are related to the performance during the visuomotor adaptation intervention.
To this end, the mean pre-test-values and the mean cognitive performance changes of each participant of the intervention group were submitted as covariates to the generalized linear model of the adaptation intervention.
This covariation can be illustrated based on the prediction values from the generalized linear model. The more divergent the performances are in the first and second compared to the third and fourth adaptation tasks, the larger is the cognitive improvement.
Notably, pre-test performance was not a significant covariate for these interactions. Predictions of the generalized linear model regarding the performance in the first and second adaptation task black lines compared to the third and fourth adaptation task grey lines with mean cognitive performance change as a covariate.
Each graph shows the values of one participant. Bars represent standard errors of predictions. The size of an angular transformation corresponds to the expected value for complete adaptation. As a reference, the mean cognitive performance change of the passive control group might be considered, which was 0.
However, it remains unclear whether the mean cognitive performance enhancement was based on an improvement of a single cognitive component inherent to all cognitive tests or an improvement of several cognitive components in parallel.
Therefore, a second covariation analysis was performed with a different set of covariates. As this was planned a posteriori, the result was Bonferroni-corrected. The new set of covariates was derived from a factor analysis of the post-pre-changes. The five variables shown in Table 2 met the a priori defined inclusion criteria for the factor analysis.
The minimal anti-image correlation was 0. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin-criterion was 0. The inspection of the scree plot revealed an inflection point below the second factor. Both factors had Eigenvalues larger than 1 and therefore were extracted.
The result of the factor analysis is shown in Table 2. Each of the five variables can be assigned more clearly to the one factor than to the other. The Stroop Test measures and the Trail Making Test predominantly load on factor 1, and the measures from the Maze and the Digit Span Test predominantly load on factor 2.
The estimation of the stability of the factor structure resulted in 0. As these factors are orthogonal, these results point to covariations of two independent variance components with the visuomotor adaptation intervention.
The present study investigated whether multiple adaptations to visuomotor transformations significantly affect cognitive performance. The results indicate that the participants of the intervention group adapted to all transformations and significantly increased their cognitive performance compared to a passive control group.
The participants of the intervention group adapted to each angular transformation by about 9°. The adaptation to the 30° transformation developed on a lower level than previously reported by two studies that had used the same experimental apparatus [ 8 , 15 ].
This finding might be explained by the fact that the participants performed four adaptation tasks alternatingly. Albert et al. The different demands of the four adaptation tasks and the increasing angular transformations might have had a similar effect in the present study.
The overall adaptation illustrated by Fig 4A is the averaged performance at the four different adaptation tasks; the participants adapted in all four tasks concurrently. Concurrent adaptation to four visuomotor transformations was also reported by Thomas and Bock [ 36 ], whose participants performed bilateral hand training; i.
The participants of the present study adapted in all tasks with one hand only. The switching between adaptation tasks performed with one hand typically leads to interference when the tasks require the adaptation of movement directions to opposite directions in the same workspace [ 17 , 37 , 46 ].
This might be another explanation for the observed incomplete adaptation. Bastian [ 47 ] and Wolpert et al. The switching needs much more trials to be learned [ 23 , 49 ]. In the present study, clockwise and counterclockwise transformations switched times, which seemed sufficient for the participants to learn the switching partially.
This is shown by the analysis of the very first movements at the ° transformations, which differed from the mean error of the baseline phase by about 60°. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether visuomotor adaptations improve cognitive performance.
Mean post-pre changes in the cognitive performance tests differed significantly between the intervention and the control group, indicating a causal relationship between sensorimotor adaptation training and cognitive performance. Ten from twelve test measures showed larger improvements for the intervention than for the control group on a descriptive level.
This either suggests an effect of the intervention on a very basal cognitive competence, which affects the performance in nearly all tests, or a similar effect on several cognitive functions in parallel.
The factor analysis, which yielded two orthogonal, i. Factor 1 represents the shared variance of two performance measures from the Stroop Test, one of the Trail Making Test and the Digit Span Test. An interpretation for this factor might be derived from Baeumler [ 33 ], who had developed the version of the Stroop Test used in the present study.
He described a global cognitive factor relevant for all subtests of the Stroop Test. Baeumler [ 33 ] interpreted this factor as self-paced action speed, mental agility and vigilance. Since this factor correlates with various other abilities, like attentional control and vigilance, comprehension speed, fluency, and memory tests, but not with reaction time tests and cognitive decision-making [ 33 ], the shared variance of the Stroop Test, the Trail Making Test and the Digit Span Test seem to be plausible, because these tests also measure some of the afore mentioned abilities [ 28 , 30 , 33 ].
Correlations between the Trail Making Test A, the Stroop Test as well as the Digit Span Test have been reported by other authors [ 29 , 30 , 50 ]. Following the interpretation from Salthouse [ 29 ] and Sanchez et al.
Noteworthy, fluency is also assessed by the Five Point Test in the present study, in which the participants of the intervention group scored higher than the participants of the passive control group. Factor 2 was predominantly loaded by the Maze Test and by the Digit Span Test.
Schmitz [ 15 ] also reported a covariation between a factor loaded by the Maze Test factor loading 0. Therefore, this result is plausible. Maze-traversing requires spatial-cognitive operations [ 35 , 51 ] and the Digit Span Test measures explicit working memory resources [ 34 ].
Thus, factor 2 might reflect an improvement of such working memory components, which are involved in the memory of visuospatial traces. Spatial memory capacities seem to play an important role during sensorimotor learning, as highlighted by studies from Seidler et al.
Unfortunately, neither visuospatial nor somatosensory working memory has been assessed directly by the present tests. Therefore, this is recommended for future studies. Anderson [ 53 ] presented a conceptual framework for executive control based on four interrelated domains: cognitive flexibility, goal setting, attentional control and information processing.
The two factors found in this study can be assigned to two domains of this concept. Factor 1 would be assigned to information processing, which according to Anderson [ 53 ] includes speed of processing and fluency. Factor 2 would be assigned to the domain of cognitive flexibility, which according to the authors also includes working memory.
According to this interpretation, adaptation would be related to executive control. An ANCOVA was conducted to detect possible relationships between cognitive performance changes and factors of the adaptation tasks.
It should be noted that a significant covariation between variables provides information about shared variance but does not allow causal attribution. The mean cognitive performance change was a significant covariate for adaptation effects of the intervention group confirming that the mean cognitive performance change shared variance with specific effects of the adaptation tasks.
According to the taxonomy of Cohen [ 54 ], the effect sizes reflect medium to large effects. As illustrated by Fig 7 , the cognitive performance changes seem to be related to the performance differences between successive adaptation tasks. That means that it is not the participants who adapt best who have the largest cognitive improvements, but those who show the largest performance differences between tasks.
The performance difference might be interpreted as interference between successive adaptations tasks. A larger degree of interference might have represented a stronger stimulus for cognitive functions, which in turn developed more strongly.
Notably, also for the participants with the larger cognitive performance enhancements, the interference persisted until the end of the intervention.
With the exception of the covariations with the factor block, all covariations involved at least one of the factors angular transformation, order or workspace. This might indicate that the increasing task demands as well as the switching or the interference between tasks were relevant for the increase in cognitive performance.
In summary, the present study observed cognitive performance improvements in the intervention compared to the control group. Covariation analyses indicate a possible relationship between the mean cognitive performance change and specific components of the adaptation intervention.
Whether these covariations reflect causal effects needs to be investigated in future studies. Browse Subject Areas? Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field. Article Authors Metrics Comments Media Coverage Reader Comments Figures.
Abstract Several studies reported that adaptation to a visuomotor transformation correlates with the performance in cognitive performance tests. Bharadwaj, L V Prasad Eye Institute, INDIA Received: May 5, ; Accepted: September 6, ; Published: September 21, Copyright: © Gerd Schmitz. Introduction A fundamental human ability is the ability to adapt to changing environments.
Materials and methods 19 women and 17 men participated in the study. Cognitive performance tests Before and after the sensorimotor adaptation training, all participants performed seven neuropsychological tests paper-pencil-tests.
Previous studies have shown that the outcomes of these tests correlate with the performance during adaptation to visuomotor transformations as described below: Frankfurter Attentional Inventory 2 FAIR 2. Four marginally differing symbols are presented in random order times on two DIN A4 pages.
Two of the four symbols represented target symbols. The participants draw a line under the symbols. As soon as they identify a target item, they draw the line into the corresponding symbol. The participants have to mark as many target symbols as possible within 6 minutes.
The dependent variable K is interpreted as a measure of sustained attention [ 25 ]. A larger K reflects better performance. This parameter was a significant covariate for adaptation to increasing discordance sizes in one study [ 8 ]. Further studies reported the significance of attentional resources for adaptation e.
Number Connection Test. The participants have to connect the numbers 1—90 on a DIN A 4 page in ascending order as quickly as possible. Each higher number is located in spatial proximity to the former number directly or in the diagonal to the left or right, above or below. The performance depends on cognitive processing speed and decision-making abilities [ 26 ].
Furthermore, processing speed and decision time correlate with the performance during adaptation [ 14 ]. Trail Making Test TMT : The participants have to connect numbers task A or alternatingly numbers and letters task B as quickly as possible. The symbols are randomly distributed on a DIN A4 page.
The task is supposed to measure cognitive processing speed task A, task B , visuospatial orientation as well as fluid cognitive abilities task A, task B and cognitive flexibility task B [ 27 — 30 ].
The performance in this test was a significant predictor of the interference between consecutive adaptations in [ 15 ]. Processing speed and flexibility were also significant predictors for adaptation [ 14 ]. Five-Point Test: The participants have to produce as many unique figures as possible within 3 minutes by connecting two to five points pre-printed in rectangles 40 rectangles per DIN A4 page.
They are instructed to avoid repetitions. The number of unique designs is interpreted as a measure of figural fluency and divergent thinking, and the number of repetitions divided by the number of all designs as a measure for perseveration [ 28 , 31 , 32 ].
Both parameters are significant covariates for the adaptation to increasing sensorimotor discordances [ 8 ]. Perseveration is also a predictor of the generalization of adaptation and the interference between consecutive adaptations [ 15 ].
Moreover, divergent thinking abilities predict how fast participants adapt [ 12 ]. Stroop Test. Each task requires 72 responses. The dependent variable is performance time.
Factor analyses indicate that the test performance primarily depends on action initiation tasks 1 to 3 , reading speed task 1 , nomination speed task 2 and cognitive control of attention during interference task 3 [ 33 , 34 ].
The performance in this test is a significant predictor of the interference between consecutive adaptations [ 15 ]. Maze Test. The task is to move a pen from the center of a maze Porteus-maze to a target position at the outer edge of the maze as quickly as possible.
Measured are performance time for a pseudo-maze without bifurcations and performance time for a maze with bifurcations. The maze-test requires visuomotor abilities pseudo-maze, maze as well as visuospatial planning and decision-making abilities maze [ 35 ].
Digit Span Forward. The participants have to repeat verbally a sequence of single digit numbers read out by the experimenter. The digits of a number are read out at one-second intervals. The participants have to hold the digits in consciousness until a number has been read out completely. After two trials with the same number of digits, the following trial contains a sequence including an additional digit.
The test stops when both trials with the same number of digits are wrong. The number of correct answers is taken as a measure of verbal working memory [ 34 ]. The performance in this test is a significant predictor for the generalization of adaptation and the interference between consecutive adaptations [ 15 ].
Verbal working memory seems particularly important for fast adaptation processes [ 5 ]. Visuomotor adaptation training The participants of the intervention group conducted the visuomotor training at home on their own Notebook-PC.
Download: PPT. Procedure of the visuomotor adaptation training Each session started with the basic visuomotor transformation with feedback baseline phase. Data analysis The learning of an angular visuomotor transformation occurs by adaptation of trajectory planning processes that remaps the movement vector, i.
Results Baseline phase and visuomotor pre-post changes Each session started with the baseline phase, in which the participants of the intervention group moved the stylus with a mean deviation of Performance in the adaptation tasks Fig 3 also shows the adaptation performance of the exemplary participant.
Fig 4. Mean performance averaged across the four adaptation tasks. Sequential adaptation effects The participants adapted their movements in response to the increasing transformations; however, adaptation was incomplete.
Fig 5. Progress of adaptation across blocks in the first and second compared to the third and fourth adaptation task. Fig 6. Progress of adaptation across episodes and blocks in the distal and proximal workspace.
Cognitive performance changes All results of the cognitive performance tests are shown in Table 1. Relation between the cognitive performance changes and the visuomotor adaptation The aim of the next analysis was to find out whether the results from the cognitive performance tests are related to the performance during the visuomotor adaptation intervention.
Fig 7. Predictions of the generalized linear model with mean cognitive performance change as a covariate. Table 2. Factor analysis of post-pre changes in the cognitive performance tests. Discussion The present study investigated whether multiple adaptations to visuomotor transformations significantly affect cognitive performance.
Adaptation The participants of the intervention group adapted to each angular transformation by about 9°. Cognitive performance changes The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether visuomotor adaptations improve cognitive performance. Supporting information.
S1 Data.
Cognitive Adaptation Training or CAT for Blood sugar crash headache is a therapy to help people with schizophrenia or a Preventive measures against diabetes illness who experience difficulties carrying out daily living Cognitivr due to adaptafions cognitive impairments associated trainng Electrolytes and endurance trining. Environmental supports Electrolytes and endurance CAT ttaining to Cognutive problems with thinking and motivation that often get in the way of recovery. Research America has shown that CAT is an effective way of assisting people with schizophrenia in the recovery process. These supports are integrated into the routines and living spaces and include a range of tools. Examples include. When the assessments are completed, the next step is that you and your therapist set goals to work towards. You are an equal partner in this process and no goals will be set without your consent. Cognitive training adaptations your email address adaptationns and we will send you the Cohnitive instructions. If the address adaltations an existing account you will receive an Electrolytes and endurance with Beta-carotene and skin health to Cognitive training adaptations your password. Cognigive the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username. Introduction by the column editors: Psychosocial treatment and rehabilitation can be categorized as a primarily remedial or a primarily compensatory means of targeting the functional deficits of persons with schizophrenia and other disabling mental disorders. Remedial strategies attempt to overcome functional deficits by improving the individual's skills through training interventions.
der Maßgebliche Standpunkt, neugierig.
Keinesfalls