. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Nov 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016 Nov-Dec;31(6):419–433. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000203

TABLE 2.

Study and participant characteristics

First author	Class	N	Etiology and time since injury	Mean age (y)	Intervention type	Control condition	Types of outcomes	Follow- up	Results
Akerlund et al²³	I	45	Mixed 27.8 wk	51.9	CogMed QM	Conventional rehabilitation	Standard NP measures, self-report rating	3 mo	Significant differences on measures of attention and working memory, neuropsychological impairment, depression
Batchelor et al²⁴	Ia	34	TBI 84.5 d	24.4	Remediation of deficits in memory, attention/ speed, high cognitive functioning	Conventional rehabilitation	Standard NP measures	None	Both groups improved significantly on NP measures (no differences between groups)
Bjorkdahl et al²⁵	II	38	Mixed 27 wk	51	CogMed QM	Conventional rehabilitation	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	3 mo	Significant improvements in attention, executive functioning, working memory, fatigue
Chen et al²⁶	II	40	TBI 8.6 mo	28.2	Hierarchical computer- assisted cognitive rehabilitation	Conventional rehabilitation	Standard NP measures	None	The CACR group improved on more measures compared with control (15 vs 7 measures)
De Luca et al²⁷	II	35	Mixed 3–6 mo	35.3	Training in memory, executive functions, abilities of thinking	Conventional rehabilitation	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	Experimental group improved significantly more than the control group on all NP measures and self-reports
Fernandez et al²⁸	III	50	Mixed >50% sample	68% aged 20–39 y	RehaCom	None	Standard NP measures	None	Significant improvements on WMS scales
			1–5 y
Gauggel and Niemann²⁹	III	4	Mixed 1.5 mo	47.5	Computer-assisted training program	None	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	Improvement trends were seen on attention and memory tests
Gray and Robertson³⁰	III	3	TBI Unknown	23	Microcomputer training	None	Standard NP measures	None	Two patients improved on all NP measures by at least 1 SD
Gray et al³¹	I	31	Mixed 81.3 wk	29.8	5 computer training programs: reaction time, rapid number comparison, digit symbol transfer, alternation Stroop programme, divided attention task	Nontraining computer games/tasks	Standard NP measures	6 mo	The experimental group performed better on auditory verbal working memory and attention at 6 mo follow-up
Johansson and Tornmalm³²	III	18	Mixed 7 y	47.5	CogMed QM	None	Cognitive measures, self-report ratings, clinician ratings	6 mo	Significant improvements on self-report measures of cognition after treatment and at follow-up
Kim et al³³	I	28	Stroke 20.9 d	64.4	Computer-assisted rehabilitation and virtual reality training	Computer- assisted training alone	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	Both groups improved, but the combined performed better on some NP measures
Lebowitz et al³⁴	III	10	TBI 9.4 y	46.3	Brain plasticity- based cognitive training	None	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	Significant changes on attention measures and on self-reported cognition
Li et al³⁵	III	11	Mixed 21.27 mo	49.45	Attention and memory programs from Parrot software	None	Standard NP measures	None	Significant improvements on attention and memory measures
Lundqvist et al³⁶	II	21	Mixed 46.4 mo	43.3	CogMed QM	Waitlist	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	20 wk	Significant improvements on nontrained working memory tasks, self- reported cognition, and health after treatment and at follow-up
Man et al³⁷	I	103	Mixed 4.0 y	44.8	Computer-assisted training program administered online or supplemented by support from therapist	No treatment or therapist- administered training	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	Both groups significantly improved on problem- solving abilities and self-reported functional abilities
Middleton et al³⁸	III	36	Mixed 3.0 y	27	Attention and memory training software or reasoning and logical thinking software	None	Standard NP measures	None	Both groups demonstrated similar significant improvements on NP measures posttesting
Niemann et al³⁹	I	26	TBI 39.1 mo	31.6	Attentional training program	Memory training program	Standard NP measures	None	Attention group performed significantly better on measures of attention (memory group did not perform better on memory measures)
Park et al⁴⁰	I	11	Stroke 27.3 d	65.6	Korean computer- assisted cognitive rehabilitation with real tDCS	Korean computer- assisted cognitive rehabilitation with sham tDCS	Standard NP measures	None	Significant differences on auditory and visual measures of attention and executive functioning
Ponsford and Kinsella⁴¹	II	26	TBI ≤9 mo	25.3	Computer programs: react, search, red square/green square, spot the letter, evens and fives	Not specified	Standard NP measures, cognitive measures, clinician ratings	None	Improvements were seen in memory, but they could not be directly attributed to the training program
Prokopenko et al⁴²	I	43	Stroke ≤14 d	63.2	Computer programs for attention and visual and spatial gnosis	Conventional rehabilitation	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings, clinician ratings	None	Significantly better performance in attention and self-reported cognition
Ruff et al⁴³	I	40	TBI 45.3 d	30.8	Computer training: attention, spatial integration, memory, problem solving	Psychosocial adjustment, leisure, and activities of daily living	Standard NP measures	None	Trends suggesting experimental group had greater improvement in memory and attention
Ruff et al⁴⁴	II	15	TBI > 6 mo	26.9	THINKable computer program	None	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	Small significant improvements on training tasks and NP measures
Serino et al⁴⁵	II	9	TBI 28 mo	34	Working memory training program based on PASAT	General stimulation training	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	Significant improvements on working memory, divided attention, executive functions, long-term memory, and questionnaire measures; the control group did not improve
Sohlberg and Mateer⁴⁶	II	4	Mixed 36.5 mo	28	Program for 5 levels of attention: focused, sustained, selective, alternation, divided	None	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	All participants improved on measures of attention, but not all were statistically significant
Sturm and Willmes¹⁷	II	35	Stroke 14.7 mo	50.7	WDG and Cognitrone	None	Cognitive measures	6 wk	Significant improvements on measures of attention
Westerberg et al¹⁸	I	18	Stroke 20.1 mo	54	RoboMemo software	No treatment	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	Significantly better on measures of attention and executive functioning
Wood and Fussey⁴⁷	II	30	TBI Unknown	28.3	Computer training with visual scanning, perceptual discrimination, judgment and anticipation, motor response	No treatment and conventional rehabilitation	Cognitive measures, behavior recordings	Unknown	Significant changes on behavioral measures between baseline and posttesting, and changes on choice reaction test seen at follow-up
Zickefoose et al⁴⁸	III	4	TBI ≥3 y	42.75	Attention training (APT-3 or Lumosity games)	None	Standard NP measures, self-report ratings	None	Improvements on difficulty level of task and general improvement on attention, but large variability between participants

Abbreviations: APT-3, Attention Process Training; CACR, computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation; NP, neuropsychological; PASAT, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; SD, standard deviation; TBI, traumatic brain injury; tDCS, transcranial direct-current stimulation; WDG, Wiener Determinationsgerat; WMS, Wechsler Memory Scale.