Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-5 | Page 31

Memory rehabilitation post-stroke
347
Table II. Participant demographic, stroke and baseline memory variables
Variable
Computer training (n   =  22) Memory group (n = 24) Wait control (n = 19) Total (n = 65)
Participant variables
Age, years, mean (SD)
Female, %
61.7 (11.6)
29.2 60.4 (11.5)
36.4
Education, years, mean (SD)
14.0 (2.6)
Estimated IQ years, mean (SD)
102.5 (12.1)
MoCA total years, mean (SD)
23.8 (2.5)
NEADL total years, mean (SD)
17.0 (6.5)
Stroke variables
Time since stroke, months, mean (SD) 46.3 (51.1)
Left hemisphere, %
42.9 14.3 (2.1)
105.2 (11.5)
24.7 (2.2)
19.2 (4.8)
60.5 (16.0)
63.2
14.2 (2.7)
99.3 (13.2)
24.0 (3.7)
20.5 (1.9)
60.9 (12.8)
41.5
14.2 (2.4)
102.6 (12.1)
24.2 (2.8)
18.8 (5.1)
Statistic (p-value)
F = 0.07 (0.93)
χ 2  = 5.41 (0.07)
F = 0.04 (0.96)
F = 1.14 (0.33)
F = 0.59 (0.56)
F = 2.23 (0.11)
40.9 (46.5)
69.5 37.3 (35.4)
47.3 41.7 (44.8)
54.8 83.4
50.0 16.6
79.2 0.0
84.2 9.23
69.2 Verbal learning a
Verbal recalla –0.7 (1.5)
–1.3 (1.5) –0.7 (1.2)
–1.0 (1.2) –0.4 (1.4)
–0.3 (1.4) Visual recall a –1.1 (1.1) –1.0 (1.3) –0.4 (1.4) –0.9 (1.3) F = 1.79 (0.18)
–1.0 (1.3) –1.0 (1.5) –0.3 (1.6) –0.8 (1.5) F = 1.58 (0.21)
Verbal WM 10.4 (2.6) 11.4 (3.3) 10.0 (3.9) 10.6 (3.3) F = 1.09 (0.34)
8.6 (2.2) 8.3 (2.0) 8.8 (2.4) 8.5 (2.2) F = 0.39 (0.68)
12.5 (6.1)
4.1 (4.1) 12.8 (6.0)
3.4 (2.6) 11.9 (5.4)
3.9 (3.9) 12.5 (5.8)
3.8 (3.5) F = 0.12 (0.89)
F = 0.24 (0.80)
20.6 (13.4)
64.0 (23.5)
63.3 (26.2) 19.8 (11.2)
58.6 (14.6)
62.5 (18.7) 18.8 (16.5)
68.1 (27.0)
57.9 (22.4) 19.8 (13.2)
63.1 (21.7)
61.6 (22.4) F = 0.07 (0.93)
F =  0.87 (0.43)
F = 0.18 (0.79)
Bilateral, %
Ischaemic, %
F = 0.20 (0.82)
χ 2  = 9.96 (0.04)
χ 2  = 10.56 (0.03)
Objective memory, mean (SD)
Visual learning a
b
Visual WM b
Strategy use, mean (SD)
External
Internal
Subjective memory, mean (SD)
Everyday memory
PM-self
PM-close other
–0.6 (1.3)
–0.9 (1.4)
F = 0.34 (0.71)
F = 3.02 (0.06)
a
Values are z-scores
Values are age-scaled scores
IQ: intelligence quotient; MoCA: Montreal cognitive assessment; NEADL: Nottingham extended activities of daily living; PM: prospective memory; WM: working
memory; SD: standard deviations.
b
Table III. Estimated marginal means and effect sizes for goal
attainment
Estimated marginal means
Measure
Table IV. Estimated marginal means and effect sizes for objective
memory outcomes
Baseline
Mean ± SE
Post-
intervention
Mean ± SE
Estimated marginal means
Follow-up
Mean ± SE
Cohen’s d
Memory group
36.43 ± 2.04 55.24 ± 2.25** 59.09 ± 2.25** 1.54
Computer training 36.76 ± 2.13 48.64 ± 2.38** 47.37 ± 2.58
0.90
Wait control
37.00 ± 2.30 39.52 ± 2.41
41.55 ± 2.47
0.39
**Significant interaction favouring intervention at p≤0.01.
SE: standard errors
of MSG participants did not differ significantly from
WC or CCT participants at any time-point.
With respect to PM, there was a significant inte-
raction between group and time. Post-hoc analysis
demonstrated that participants allocated to the MSG
showed significantly greater improvement in PM bet-
ween baseline and post-intervention relative to CCT
participants. However, this effect was not maintained at
follow-up. Model significance for objective measures
can be found in Table SV 1 and is shown in Fig. S1 1 .
Objective outcomes were analysed using both raw
and standard scores with minor discrepancies noted.
Specifically, aetiology of stroke was no longer a sig-
nificant covariate when modelling outcomes on the
RAVLT total learning, while hemisphere of infarction
was a significant covariate when modelling change in
verbal working memory. No other differences in out-
come were found. The decision was made to present
Measure
Verbal learning
MSG
CCT
WC
Verbal recall
MSG
CCT
WC
Visual learning
MSG
CCT
WC
Visual recall
MSG
CCT
WC
Verbal WM
MSG
CCT
WC
Visual WM
MSG
CCT
WC
PM
MSG
CCT
WC
Baseline Post-
intervention Follow-up Mean ± SE Cohen’s d
–0.71 ± 0.24
–0.70 ± 0.25
–0.51 ± 0.27 –0.53 ± 0.26
–0.78 ± 0.27
–0.46 ± 0.28 –0.86 ± 0.26
–1.02 ± 0.28
–0.66 ± 0.25 0.10
0.35
0.11
–1.01 ± 0.24
–1.26 ± 0.25
–0.37 ± 0.27 –0.94 ± 0.25
–1.13 ± 0.27
–0.48 ± 0.28 –1.08 ± 0.25
–1.23 ± 0.28
–0.37 ± 0.28 0.04
0.02
0.00
–1.02 ± 0.26
–1.10 ± 0.27
–0.45 ± 0.29 –0.27 ± 0.28
–0.62 ± 0.26
0.22 ± 0.31 –0.12 ± 0.29
–0.72 ± 0.32
–0.16 ± 0.31 0.65
0.34
0.26
–1.03 ± 0.28
–1.00 ± 0.29
–0.40 ± 0.32 –0.31 ± 0.30
–0.52 ± 0.32
0.11 ± 0.33 –0.29 ± 0.31
–0.51 ± 0.33
–0.25 ± 0.34 0.54
0.50
0.12
10.37 ± 0.74
10.23 ± 0.67
9.94 ± 0.71 11.43 ± 0.67
9.76 ± 0.71
9.70 ± 0.73 11.89 ± 0.68* 0.26
11.07 ± 0.73 0.22
10.37 ± 0.74 0.11
8.13 ± 0.53
8.48 ± 0.58
8.78 ± 0.60 9.97 ± 0.57
9.70 ± 0.62
8.63 ± 0.62 9.75 ± 0.57
8.80 ± 0.63
9.62 ± 0.63 0.47
0.10
0.24
5.65 ± 0.57
6.29 ± 0.60
6.61 ± 0.64 9.68 ± 0.64**
6.90 ± 0.68
7.47 ± 0.68 8.84 ± 0.67
8.10 ± 0.72
7.75 ± 0.72 0.84
0.35
0.30
Mean ± SE
Mean ± SE
*Significant interaction favouring intervention at p  ≤ 0.05.
**Significant interaction favouring intervention at p  ≤ 0.01.
MSG: memory skills group; CCT: computerized cognitive training; WC: waitlist
control; WM: working memory; PM: prospective memory; SE: standard errors
J Rehabil Med 51, 2019