Dissimilar outcomes of apparently similar procedures as a challenge to clinical neurorehabilitation and basic research: when the same is not the same

Inge Linda Wilms; Jesper Mogensen

doi:10.3233/nre-2011-0696

Dissimilar outcomes of apparently similar procedures as a challenge to clinical neurorehabilitation and basic research: when the same is not the same

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the study of the brain and how it adapts to changes or injury, researchers sometimes come across situations where apparently similar types of tests or training do not achieve similar outcome results. This is true, in particular, within the field of computer-based rehabilitation where paper-and-pencil tests and training is converted to computer. This paper raises the attention to the fact that supposedly similar settings may not, in fact, elicit similar results and caution therapists and researchers who work with rehabilitation of brain injury. The paper suggests that the underlying mechanisms behind this may be illuminated by using the REF (Reorganization of Elementary Functions) model and suggests that further research into the use of advanced technologies such as computer-generated virtual reality is required.

Original language	English
Journal	NeuroRehabilitation
Volume	29
Issue number	3
Pages (from-to)	221-227
Number of pages	7
ISSN	1053-8135
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3233/nre-2011-0696
Publication status	Published - 2011

Keywords

Faculty of Social Sciences

Access to Document

10.3233/nre-2011-0696

Cite this

@article{79c66c729a26426591b9bd3e88b65948,

title = "Dissimilar outcomes of apparently similar procedures as a challenge to clinical neurorehabilitation and basic research: when the same is not the same",

abstract = "In the study of the brain and how it adapts to changes or injury, researchers sometimes come across situations where apparently similar types of tests or training do not achieve similar outcome results. This is true, in particular, within the field of computer-based rehabilitation where paper-and-pencil tests and training is converted to computer. This paper raises the attention to the fact that supposedly similar settings may not, in fact, elicit similar results and caution therapists and researchers who work with rehabilitation of brain injury. The paper suggests that the underlying mechanisms behind this may be illuminated by using the REF (Reorganization of Elementary Functions) model and suggests that further research into the use of advanced technologies such as computer-generated virtual reality is required.",

keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, rehabilitering, hjerneskade, reorganisering, REF-modellen, plasticitet, testning, generalisering, computerisering, neglect, prisme-brille tr{\ae}ning, tr{\ae}ningsmetoder, anvendt forskning, grundforskning, neurovidenskab",

author = "Wilms, {Inge Linda} and Jesper Mogensen",

year = "2011",

doi = "10.3233/nre-2011-0696",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "221--227",

journal = "NeuroRehabilitation",

issn = "1053-8135",

publisher = "IOS Press",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dissimilar outcomes of apparently similar procedures as a challenge to clinical neurorehabilitation and basic research

T2 - when the same is not the same

AU - Wilms, Inge Linda

AU - Mogensen, Jesper

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - In the study of the brain and how it adapts to changes or injury, researchers sometimes come across situations where apparently similar types of tests or training do not achieve similar outcome results. This is true, in particular, within the field of computer-based rehabilitation where paper-and-pencil tests and training is converted to computer. This paper raises the attention to the fact that supposedly similar settings may not, in fact, elicit similar results and caution therapists and researchers who work with rehabilitation of brain injury. The paper suggests that the underlying mechanisms behind this may be illuminated by using the REF (Reorganization of Elementary Functions) model and suggests that further research into the use of advanced technologies such as computer-generated virtual reality is required.

AB - In the study of the brain and how it adapts to changes or injury, researchers sometimes come across situations where apparently similar types of tests or training do not achieve similar outcome results. This is true, in particular, within the field of computer-based rehabilitation where paper-and-pencil tests and training is converted to computer. This paper raises the attention to the fact that supposedly similar settings may not, in fact, elicit similar results and caution therapists and researchers who work with rehabilitation of brain injury. The paper suggests that the underlying mechanisms behind this may be illuminated by using the REF (Reorganization of Elementary Functions) model and suggests that further research into the use of advanced technologies such as computer-generated virtual reality is required.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - rehabilitering

KW - hjerneskade

KW - reorganisering

KW - REF-modellen

KW - plasticitet

KW - testning

KW - generalisering

KW - computerisering

KW - neglect

KW - prisme-brille træning

KW - træningsmetoder

KW - anvendt forskning

KW - grundforskning

KW - neurovidenskab

U2 - 10.3233/nre-2011-0696

DO - 10.3233/nre-2011-0696

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 22142754

SN - 1053-8135

VL - 29

SP - 221

EP - 227

JO - NeuroRehabilitation

JF - NeuroRehabilitation

IS - 3

ER -

Dissimilar outcomes of apparently similar procedures as a challenge to clinical neurorehabilitation and basic research: when the same is not the same

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this