Premium
A Motor Response Offset Score Mitigates Apparent Differences in Cognitive Function between People with and without Spinal Cord Injury
Author(s) -
Lee Jinhyun A,
DudleyJavoroski Shauna A,
McCue Patrick M,
Johnson Kristin A,
Petrie Michael A,
Shields Richard K
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.738.17
Subject(s) - cognition , spinal cord injury , physical medicine and rehabilitation , cognitive test , rehabilitation , psychology , wisconsin card sorting test , audiology , medicine , physical therapy , spinal cord , neuroscience , neuropsychology
Objective Cognitive impairment is a common secondary health condition of spinal cord injury (SCI) that may limit rapid attainment of complex new skills in rehabilitation. Standardized cognitive test batteries often include a reaction time‐based score vector that may impose a cognitive score penalty upon patients who have reduced upper extremity function. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences in cognitive function exist for participants with and without SCI using cognitive tests with and without motor demands. Methods 68 individuals without SCI (“NON”) and 22 individuals with motor complete SCI (“SCI”) completed NIH Toolbox cognitive assessments, including two with motor demands and reaction‐time based scoring (Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS), Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention (Flanker) and two without timed scoring (List Sorting Working Memory (List Sorting), Picture Sequence Memory Test (Picture Sequence). Tests were administered with and without the assistance of a proctor on two days (>24 hr interval). For DCCS and Flanker, the motor‐task score offset was estimated as the difference between the proctored and non‐proctored scores. Results For demographically‐corrected data, proctoring reduced DCCS and Flanker scores (p < 0.001) and mitigated apparent differences between SCI and NON (all p > 0.403). SCI and NON did not differ for List Sorting (p > 0.072) but did differ significantly for Picture Sequence (p < 0.001). Significant practice effects existed for memory‐based tests (List Sorting and Picture Sequence); all p < 0.015, effect size > 0.645. Conclusions DCCS and Flanker scores for individuals with SCI may be artificially reduced consequent to secondary motor demands of the tests. Proctoring and computation of a motor‐response score offset enables comparisons to be made between individuals with SCI and a Non‐SCI control cohort; however, further work is needed to determine whether offset‐adjusted scores can be compared to standardized normative values. Support or Funding Information Research Support: This study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: R01HD084645, R01HD082109 This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .