You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 BRUNO BROCHET + 2251 word(s) 2251 2022-01-07 04:37:45 |
2 The format is correct Lindsay Dong Meta information modification 2251 2022-01-26 02:14:51 | |
3 The format is correct Lindsay Dong Meta information modification 2251 2022-01-26 02:15:25 | |
4 Remove from the EC Lindsay Dong Meta information modification 2251 2022-03-28 04:18:45 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Brochet, B. Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18777 (accessed on 16 December 2025).
Brochet B. Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18777. Accessed December 16, 2025.
Brochet, Bruno. "Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18777 (accessed December 16, 2025).
Brochet, B. (2022, January 25). Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18777
Brochet, Bruno. "Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 January, 2022.
Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/brainsci12010055

Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is the most promising approach for treating multiple sclerosis (MS)-related cognitive impairment (CI), despite important methodological shortcomings. CR programs could include techniques designed to improve specific domains of cognitive function such as memory, attention, or executive functions, but they can also include psychotherapy targeting emotional symptoms, behavioral interventions, and interventions targeting psychomotor issues such as motor–cognitive interference. 

multiple sclerosis cognitive rehabilitation cognition memory

1. Introduction

Treating cognitive impairment (CI) in multiple sclerosis (MS), the leading cause of disability due to nontraumatic neurological disease in young adults, is an important challenge [1]. The contribution of CI to disability in MS has been increasingly recognized, and CI has been shown to decrease health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), even in the early stages of the disease [2]. CI negatively affects daily activities such as driving, vocational status, absenteeism, and instrumental activities in persons living with MS [3]. No medication has proven to have a consistent symptomatic effect on CI in MS, and disease-modifying therapies only have a limited impact on CI progression [4].
CI in MS is dominated by a slowdown in information processing speed (IPS), as well as by disturbances of more specific cognitive functions such as attention, episodic memory (EM), working memory (WM), and executive function (EF) [5]. If a relatively circumscribed alteration in IPS linked to a specific process deficit can occur, changes in IPS can alter other cognitive processes and usually reflect cognitive functioning and efficiency. The alteration of IPS has consequences for WM, attention, EF, and EM. IPS impairment predicts later disability vocational status and changes in quality of life [3].
Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is the most promising approach for treating MS-related CI, despite important methodological shortcomings. CR programs could include techniques designed to improve specific domains of cognitive function such as memory, attention, or executive functions, but they can also include psychotherapy targeting emotional symptoms, behavioral interventions, and interventions targeting psychomotor issues such as motor–cognitive interference.
A wide variety of neuropsychological tests have been used in the assessment of cognitive impairment in MS. A panel of experts recently proposed recommendations [3] for screening tests—the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) [6], the Processing Speed Test (PST) [7], and the Computerized Speed Cognitive Test (CSCT) [8], a self-report scale (Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire (MSNQ) [9]—and recommended brief cognitive batteries: the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) [10], the Brief Repeatable Neuropsychological Battery (BRNB) [11], and the Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in MS (MACFIMS) [12]. While most of the CR studies used the SDMT, the other assessment tests varied widely from study to study.

2. Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis 

2.1. Individual-Specific Rehabilitation

2.1.1. Memory

After an initial pilot study dedicated to the modified-story memory technique (mSMT)-based rehabilitation method [13], which is basically an imagery- and context-based memory retraining program, Chiaravalloti et al. [14] conducted a pivotal study on a larger sample (86 patients) with a positive result on the main criterion, the learning slope of an NP test of EM (California Verbal Learning Test-second edition, CVLT-II), and a positive effect on Functional Assessment of MS (FAMS), an assessment of HR-QoL, as a secondary endpoint. These positive results were maintained at the remote evaluation performed six months after treatment. The second primary endpoint assessing everyday objective memory (RBMT) was also significantly more improved in the treated group than in the control group but with a small effect size. This study did not show any efficacy of booster sessions.

Assuming that cognitive training focused on improving new learning via memory-enhancing techniques does not transfer to tasks other than those involved in the intervention and considering that items self-generated by an individual are better remembered than provided information, another method of memory rehabilitation was studied by this group, the self-generation learning program (Self-GEN) [15]. In this program, the therapist teaches patients to discover the benefit of using the self-generation strategy during training, and participants must discuss how the strategies could be used in other tasks. The study involved 35 MS patients and reached primary endpoints (the Contextual Memory Test, an objective learning and memory test, and the Self-Regulation Skills Interview that assesses self-awareness and strategy use). Prospective memory (Memory of Intention Test) and HR-QoL (FAMS) were also improved. However, no significant differences were observed between groups for the CVLT-II, the MFQ, and Actual Reality, which is an ecological assessment of functional performances during an internet-based task. Therefore, the hypothesis that this rehabilitation technique could be transferred to other cognitive functions, notably the executive functions, could not be confirmed.
In a recent pilot study, Self-GEN strategy was associated with two other strategies of memory and learning rehabilitation, space learning (SL), and retrieval practice (RP), in the Strategy-based Training to Enhance Memory (STEM) program [16]. This pilot study, with limited power (20 patients), did not show a significant superiority of the STEM program to the control intervention (non-training program), on the primary endpoint (CVLT-II) and other objective tests of memory (BVMT-R), but it did show some encouraging trends and positive results on HR-QoL (FAMS and Short-Form 36 [SF-36]).

2.1.2. Multiple Domains

A study compared a 13-week individual NP rehabilitation program in a large sample of patients (99) with no intervention [17][18]. The primary endpoint of this study was the subjective perception of deficits using the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ). A greater improvement of this score was observed in the rehabilitated group compared to the control group. Regarding the NP tests, such as the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), which was the second primary outcome, and the other tests of the Brief-Repeatable Battery (BRB), no significant improvement was observed, except for the Trial Making Test-A (TMT-A). Note that the intervention’s total duration in this partially negative study was much lower than in the other two individual multidomain studies (780 min versus 3600 and 2250 min).

The REACTIV study was launched to demonstrate the superiority of a specific CR program (REACTIV) over nonspecific intervention (NSI) for NP assessment, virtual reality cognitive testing, and daily cognitive functioning in MS [19]. It was a single-blind RCT comparing these two interventions in patients with MS selected based on CI at specific tests of IPS, WM, and EF. Both programs included 50 individual sessions administered three times a week for 17 weeks. The specific intervention was tailored to patients’ deficits. The primary endpoint was NP assessment of IPS, attention, EF, and WM. Secondary endpoints included ecological assessment by tasks in a virtual reality environment (Urban Daily Cog®) and daily cognitive functioning assessment. More NP scores improved significantly in the active group and several NP scores, alertness and divided attention, and the ecological assessments improved significantly more after specific CR than after NSI. Lastly, SCR improved daily cognitive functioning. Most improvements were maintained 4 months after the end of the intervention. However, HR-Qol was not shown to be improved. The study showed the interest of an individualized and intense intervention including a meta-cognitive approach. It was also the first to show a transfer in ecological tasks. However, the study was underpowered for showing a larger effect on cognitive function. The study was performed in a real-world setting with rehabilitation by speech therapists in city practice.

2.2. Group Interventions

A double-blind multicenter study compared group rehabilitation to a sham intervention (non-training) [20]. In a fairly large sample of patients selected on the basis of the presence of a cognitive deficit, the main evaluation criterion was EM measured by the Selective Reminding Test (SRT), and a significant difference was observed in the learning curve between the treated group and the control group. WM also improved. However, there was no improvement in the other functions studied (EF, IPS). There was also no positive effect on HR-QoL.

The last study is difficult to interpret because of a mixed intervention combining group management and CT using Lumosity software [21]. Moreover, patients could be included regardless of the presence or absence of CI, and the percentage of patients who were actually cognitively impaired at inclusion is not reported. Overall, the study was negative, the primary endpoint, the Everyday Problems Test—Revised, a self-administered questionnaire, was negative, and among the NP tests, only two were improved: the CVLT and the PASAT. This negative outcome could possibly be due to a significant improvement in the control group treated by a computer game.

2.3. Computerized Multidomain Rehabilitation

The RCTs concerning multidomain CR, including attention, IPS, EF, and WM, have been developed in three categories of setting: in institutions, at home with telerehabilitation (online), and at home offline. The duration and number of CT rehabilitation sessions varied from one study to another with sessions lasting 30 to 60 min with a frequency of 2 to 3 per week for a duration of 4 to 12 weeks and a total duration of 300 to 2160 min.

Different software programs were used, the most frequent being RehaCom®. Up to 2021, eight studies have been published with this software, and four blinded RCTs were selected for this review [22][23][24][25]. Several studies have looked at other CT programs in MS and are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Blinded RCT of CT in MS.
1st Author Year Intervention (Software) Session Duration (Min) CR Duration (Weeks) Total Duration (Min) Control Intervention Main Positive Results (Primary Outcomes) LTFU (Mths) Positive Results (Secondary Outcomes) Other Positive Results Main Negative Results (Primary Outcomes Underlined)
Cerasa et al. [22] 2013 RehaCom 60 min twice a week 6 720 Placebo training no specified primary outcome ND   ST BRB tests, TMT
Amato et al. [26] 2014 APT 60 min twice a week 12 1440 Placebo training no specified primary outcome 6   PASAT SDMT *
De Giglio et al. [27] 2015 DKBT 30 min 3 times a week 8 720 No intervention no specified primary outcome ND   ST, SDMT, some MSQoL54 subscales PASAT
Hancock et al. [28] 2015 PS Insight and Brain Twister n-back 30 min 6 times a week 6 1080 Sham training PASAT ND     SDMT, LNS, Digit backward
Pedullà et al. [29] 2016 Cogni-Track 30 min 5 times a week 8 1200 Non-adaptative training no specified primary outcome 6   SRT, SDMT, PASAT, WLG SPART, WCST
Campbell et al. [23] 2016 RehaCom 45 min 3 times a week 6 810 Placebo training SDMT 3     BVMT, CVLT, FAMS, EQ-5D
Charvet et al. [30] 2017 Brain HQ (PS) 60 min 5 times a week 12 1800 Placebo training Composite NP score ND      
Grasso et al. [31] 2017 APT 60 min 3 times a week 12 2160 No intervention no specified primary outcome 6 **    
Messinis et al. [24] 2017 RehaCom 60 min twice a week 10 1200 No intervention no specified primary outcome 6   Verbal EM, attention, verbal fluency, IPS z scores  
Chiaravalloti et al. [32] 2018 SPT 30 min twice a week 5 300 No intervention   ND TIADL   WAIS digit symbol *
Messinis et al. [25] 2020 RehaCom 45 min 3 times a week 8 1080 Placebo training SDMT, GVLT, BVMT ND EQ-5D    
Vilou et al. [33] 2020 Brain HQ (PS) 40 min twice a week 6 480 No intervention no specified primary outcome ND   GVLT, BVMT, TMT-A, ST SDMT
Blair et al. [34] 2021 Cogmed 30–45 min 5 times a week 5 750–1125 No intervention   6     PASAT *, SDMT *, ST *
CR: cognitive rehabilitation; Min: minutes; LTFU: positive results at long-term follow-up; ND: not done; Mths: months; EM: episodic memory; IPS: information processing speed; *: test improved in both groups; ** no difference between groups. Rehabilitation programs: ATP: Attention Processing Training program; DKBT: Dr. Kawashima’s Brain Training® (Nintendo); PS: Posit Science; SPT: Speed of Processing Training. Outcomes: BRB: Brief-Repeatable Battery; BVMT-R: Brief Visuospatial Memory Test—Revised; CVLT-II: California Verbal Learning Test—2nd edition; EQ-5D: EuroQoL five-dimension questionnaire; FAMS: Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis; GVLT: Greek Verbal Learning Test; LNS: Letter–Number Sequencing; MSQoL54: MS Quality of Life questionnaire; PASAT: Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; SDMT: Symbol Digit Modalities Test; SPART: Spatial Recall Test (10–36); SRT: Selective Reminding Test; ST: Stroop test; TIADL: Timed Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Test; TMT: Trail-Making Test. WAIS: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; WCST: Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test; WLG: Word List Generation. Underlined outcomes are primary outcomes.

3. Conclusions

Altogether, the studies about memory individual CR support the efficacy of m-SMT for improving learning in MS patients. This technique is able to improve verbal episodic memory and HR-QoL. There is some evidence of the efficiency of daily cognitive functioning, but there is no evidence of transfer in other domains. More data are necessary to support other methods of memory individual CR.

Most studies of specialized individual rehabilitation have given positive and encouraging results, but this type of rehabilitation requires significant human resources and a significant time investment by patients.

The large number of studies about CT is probably due to the ease of this technique. The possibility of implementing this CT at home and with telerehabilitation is also very promising. The variety of software used in these studies makes it difficult to compare them. RehaCom has been the most used. All in all, these studies on RehaCom tend to show the effectiveness of this rehabilitation program in MS but leave several important questions unanswered: its use in telerehabilitation, its effectiveness on specific sub-domains according to the cognitive domain most affected, the interest of adding individual rehabilitation sessions including in particular a meta-cognitive approach, its effectiveness on daily cognitive functioning assessed by ecological tests, and its effect on quality of life in RRMS.

The other studies of CT with different programs (APT, PS, SPT) showed various results. As a result of the different software used, it is difficult to draw general conclusions, but some of them demonstrated the feasibility of home-based CR [26][27][29] and of telerehabilitation [30][33][34]. The evidence of the efficacy of telerehabilitation is still limited, but the results encourage further studies in this field. The development of computerized assessment methods for cognitive disorders in MS, which have been the subject of a recent review [35], may help the deployment of telerehabilitation.
Although a demonstration of the effectiveness of multidomain CR, in particular on quality of life and transfer to cognitive domains different from those trained, is lacking, several studies show the feasibility of individual CR in daily life settings and home telerehabilitation using CT. A certain level of efficacy has been established regarding NP outcomes and in several studies on daily cognitive functioning.

References

  1. Amato, M.P.; Langdon, D.; Montalban, X.; Benedict, R.H.B.; DeLuca, J.; Krupp, L.; Thompson, A.; Comi, G. Treatment of cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: Position paper. J. Neurol. 2012, 260, 1452–1468.
  2. Ruet, A.; Deloire, M.; Hamel, D.; Ouallet, J.-C.; Petry, K.; Brochet, B. Cognitive impairment, health-related quality of life and vocational status at early stages of multiple sclerosis: A 7-year longitudinal study. J. Neurol. 2012, 260, 776–784.
  3. Kalb, R.; Beier, M.; Benedict, R.H.; Charvet, L.; Costello, K.; Feinstein, A.; Gingold, J.; Goverover, Y.; Halper, J.; Harris, C.; et al. Recommendations for cognitive screening and management in multiple sclerosis care. Mult. Scler. J. 2018, 24, 1665–1680.
  4. Landmeyer, N.C.; Bürkner, P.C.; Wiendl, H.; Ruck, T.; Hartung, H.P.; Holling, H.; Meuth, S.G.; Johnen, A. Disease-modifying treatments and cognition in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A meta-analysis. Neurology 2020, 94, e2373–e2383.
  5. Brochet, B.; Ruet, A. Cognitive Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis with Regards to Disease Duration and Clinical Phenotypes. Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 261.
  6. Benedict, R.H.; DeLuca, J.; Phillips, G.; LaRocca, N.; Hudson, L.D.; Rudick, R.; Multiple Sclerosis Outcome Assessments Consortium. Validity of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test as a cognition performance outcome measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 2017, 23, 721–733.
  7. Rao, S.M.; Losinski, G.; Mourany, L.; Schindler, D.; Mamone, B.; Reece, C.; Kemeny, D.; Narayanan, S.; Miller, D.M.; Bethoux, F.; et al. Processing speed test: Validation of a self-administered, iPadR-based tool for screening cognitive dysfunction in a clinic setting. Mult. Scler. 2017, 23, 1929–1937.
  8. Ruet, A.; Deloire, M.S.A.; Charre-Morin, J.; Hamel, D.; Brochet, B. A new computerised cognitive test for the detection ofinformation processing speed impairment in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 2013, 19, 1665–1672.
  9. Benedict, R.H.B.; Cox, D.; Thompson, L.L.; Foley, F.; Weinstock-Guttman, B.; Munschauer, F. Reliable screening for neuropsychological impairment in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. J. 2004, 10, 675–678.
  10. Langdon, D.W.; Amato, M.P.; Boringa, J.; Brochet, B.; Foley, F.; Fredrikson, S.; Hämäläinen, P.; Hartung, H.-P.; Krupp, L.; Penner, I.-K.; et al. Recommendations for a Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS). Mult. Scler. J. 2011, 18, 891–898.
  11. Rao, S.M.; Leo, G.J.; Bernardin, L.; Unverzagt, F. Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: I. Frequency, patterns, and prediction. Neurology 1991, 41, 685–691.
  12. Benedict, R.H.; Cookfair, D.; Gavett, R.; Gunther, M.; Munschauer, F.; Garg, N.; Weinstock-Guttman, B. Validity of the minimal assessment of cognitive function in multiple sclerosis (MACFIMS). J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2006, 12, 549–558.
  13. Chiaravalloti, N.D.; DeLuca, J.; Moore, N.B.; Ricker, J.H. Treating learning impairments improves memory performance in multiple sclerosis: A randomized clinical trial. Mult. Scler. 2005, 11, 58–68.
  14. Chiaravalloti, N.D.; Moore, N.B.; Nikelshpur, O.M.; DeLuca, J. An RCT to treat learning impairment in multiple sclerosis: The MEMREHAB trial. Neurology 2013, 81, 2066–2072.
  15. Goverover, Y.; Chiaravalloti, N.; Genova, H.; DeLuca, J. A randomized controlled trial to treat impaired learning and memory in multiple sclerosis: The self-GEN trial. Mult. Scler. J. 2017, 24, 1096–1104.
  16. Chiaravalloti, N.D.; Moore, N.B.; Weber, E.; DeLuca, J. The application of Strategy-based Training to Enhance Memory (STEM) in multiple sclerosis: A pilot RCT. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 2019, 31, 231–254.
  17. Rosti-Otajärvi, E.; Mäntynen, A.; Koivisto, K.; Huhtala, H.; Hämäläinen, P. Neuropsychological rehabilitation has beneficial effects on perceived cognitive deficits in multiple sclerosis during nine-month follow-up. J. Neurol. Sci. 2013, 15, 154–160.
  18. Mäntynen, A.; Rosti-Otajärvi, E.; Koivisto, K.; Lilja, A.; Huhtala, H.; Hämäläinen, P. Neuropsychological rehabilitation does not improve cognitive performance but reduces perceived cognitive deficits in patients with multiple sclerosis: A randomised, controlled, multi-centre trial. Mult. Scler. 2014, 20, 99–107.
  19. Lamargue, D.; Koubiyr, I.; Deloire, M.; Saubusse, A.; Charre-Morin, J.; Moroso, A.; Coupé, P.; Brochet, B.; Ruet, A. Effect of cognitive rehabilitation on neuropsychological and semiecological testing and on daily cognitive functioning in multiple sclerosis: The REACTIV randomized controlled study. J. Neurol. Sci. 2020, 415, 116929.
  20. Brissart, H.; Omorou, A.Y.; Forthoffer, N.; Berger, E.; Moreau, T.; De Seze, J.; Morele, E.; Debouverie, M. Memory improvement in multiple sclerosis after an extensive cognitive rehabilitation program in groups with a multicenter double-blind randomized trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2020, 34, 754–763.
  21. Stuifbergen, A.K.; Becker, H.; Perez, F.; Morrison, J.; Brown, A.; Kullberg, V.; Zhang, W. Computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation in persons with multiple sclerosis: Results of a multi-site randomized controlled trial with six month follow-up. Disabil. Health J. 2018, 11, 427–434.
  22. Cerasa, A.; Gioia, M.C.; Valentino, P.; Nisticò, R.; Chiriaco, C.; Pirritano, D.; Tomaiuolo, F.; Mangone, G.; Trotta, M.; Talarico, T.; et al. Computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation of attention deficits for multiple sclerosis: A randomized trial with fMRI correlates. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 2013, 27, 284–295.
  23. Campbell, J.; Langdon, D.; Cercignani, M.; Rashid, W. A Randomised Controlled Trial of Efficacy of Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis: A Cognitive, Behavioural, and MRI Study. Neural Plast. 2016, 2016, 4292585.
  24. Messinis, L.; Nasios, G.; Kosmidis, M.H.; Zampakis, P.; Malefaki, S.; Ntoskou, K.; Nousia, A.; Bakirtzis, C.; Grigoriadis, N.; Gourzis, P.; et al. Efficacy of a Computer-Assisted Cognitive Rehabilitation Intervention in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Behav. Neurol. 2017, 2017, 5919841.
  25. Messinis, L.; Kosmidis, M.H.; Nasios, G.; Konitsiotis, S.; Ntoskou, A.; Bakirtzis, C.; Grigoriadis, N.; Patrikelis, P.; Panagiotopoulos, E.; Gourzis, P.; et al. Do Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis patients benefit from Computer- based cognitive neurorehabilitation? A randomized sham controlled trial. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2020, 39, 101932.
  26. Amato, M.P.; Goretti, B.; Viterbo, R.G.; Portaccio, E.; Niccolai, C.; Hakiki, B.; Iaffaldano, P.; Trojano, M. Computer-assisted rehabilitation of attention in patients with multiple sclerosis: Results of a randomized, double-blind trial. Mult. Scler. 2014, 20, 91–98.
  27. De Giglio, L.; De Luca, F.; Prosperini, L.; Borriello, G.; Bianchi, V.; Pantano, P.; Pozzilli, C. A low-cost cognitive rehabilitation with a commercial video game improves sustained attention and executive functions in multiple sclerosis: A pilot study. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 2015, 29, 453–461.
  28. Hancock, L.M.; Bruce, J.M.; Bruce, A.S.; Lynch, S.G. Processing speed and working memory training in multiple sclerosis: A double-blind randomized controlled pilot study. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2015, 37, 113–127.
  29. Pedullà, L.; Brichetto, G.; Tacchino, A.; Vassallo, C.; Zaratin, P.; Battaglia, M.A.; Bonzano, L.; Bove, M. Adaptive vs. non-adaptive cognitive training by means of a personalized App: A randomized trial in people with multiple sclerosis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2016, 13, 88.
  30. Charvet, L.E.; Yang, J.; Shaw, M.T.; Sherman, K.; Haider, L.; Xu, J.; Krupp, L.B. Cognitive function in multiple sclerosis improves with telerehabilitation: Results from a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177177.
  31. Grasso, M.G.; Broccoli, M.; Casillo, P.; Catani, S.; Pace, L.; Pompa, A.; Rizzi, F.; Troisi, E. Evaluation of the Impact of Cognitive Training on Quality of Life in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Eur. Neurol. 2017, 78, 111–117.
  32. Chiaravalloti, N.D.; Goverover, Y.; Costa, S.L.; DeLuca, J. A Pilot Study Examining Speed of Processing Training (SPT) to Improve Processing Speed in Persons with Multiple Sclerosis. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 685.
  33. Vilou, I.; Bakirtzis, C.; Artemiadis, A.; Ioannidis, P.; Papadimitriou, M.; Konstantinopoulou, E.; Aretouli, E.; Messinis, L.; Nasios, G.; Dardiotis, E.; et al. Computerized cognitive rehabilitation for treatment of cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: An explorative study. J. Integr. Neurosci. 2020, 19, 341–347.
  34. Blair, M.; Goveas, D.; Safi, A.; Marshall, C.; Rosehart, H.; Orenczuk, S.; Morrow, S.A. Does cognitive training improve attention/working memory in persons with MS? A pilot study using the Cogmed Working Memory Training program. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2021, 49, 102770.
  35. Wojcik, C.M.; Beier, M.; Costello, K.; DeLuca, J.; Feinstein, A.; Goverover, Y.; Gudesblatt, M.; Jaworski, M.; Kalb, R.; Kostich, L.; et al. Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review. Mult. Scler. J. 2019, 25, 1848–1869.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Neurosciences
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : BRUNO BROCHET
View Times: 782
Revisions: 4 times (View History)
Update Date: 28 Mar 2022
Table of Contents
    Notice
    You are not a member of the advisory board for this topic. If you want to update advisory board member profile, please contact office@encyclopedia.pub.
    OK
    Confirm
    Only members of the Encyclopedia advisory board for this topic are allowed to note entries. Would you like to become an advisory board member of the Encyclopedia?
    Yes
    No
    ${ textCharacter }/${ maxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    There is no comment~
    ${ textCharacter }/${ maxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    ${ selectedItem.replyTextCharacter }/${ selectedItem.replyMaxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    Confirm
    Are you sure to Delete?
    Yes No
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback