Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:22:33.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visuospatial Learning in Traumatic Brain Injury: An Examination of Impairments using the Computerised Austin Maze Task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2015

Cynthia A. Honan ,
Skye McDonald  and
Alana Fisher
Cynthia A. Honan*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Moving Ahead Centre for Research Excellence in Brain Recovery, Australia
Skye McDonald
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Moving Ahead Centre for Research Excellence in Brain Recovery, Australia
Alana Fisher
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Cynthia A. Honan, School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia. E-mail: c.honan@unsw.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

An important aspect of cognitive functioning that is often impaired following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is visuospatial learning and memory. The Austin Maze task is a measure of visuospatial learning that has a long history in both clinical neuropsychological practice and research, particularly in individuals with TBI. The aim of this study was to evaluate visuospatial learning deficits following TBI using a new computerised version of the Austin Maze task. Twenty-eight individuals with moderate-to-severe TBI were compared to 28 healthy controls on this task, together with alternative neuropsychological measures, including the WAIS-III Digit Symbol and Digit Span subtests, the Trail Making Test, WMS-III Logical Memory, and Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure Test. The results demonstrated that TBI individuals performed significantly more poorly on the Austin Maze task than control participants. The Austin Maze task also demonstrated good convergent and divergent validity with the alternative neuropsychological measures. Thus, the computerised version of the Austin Maze appears to be a sensitive measure that can detect visuospatial learning impairments in individuals with moderate-to-severe TBI. The new computerised version of the task offers much promise in that it is more accessible and easier to administer than the conventional form of the test.

Keywords

Austin Mazecomputer versiontraumatic brain injuryvisual memoryneuropsychological assessment
Type
Articles
Information
Brain Impairment , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 19 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bigler, E.D. (2007). Anterior and middle cranial fossa in traumatic brain injury: relevant neuroanatomy and neuropathology in the study of neuropsychological outcome. Neuropsychology, 21, 515–531.Google Scholar
Bigler, E.D., & Maxwell, W.L. (2011). Neuroimaging and neuropathology of TBI. NeuroRehabilitation, 28, 63–74.Google Scholar
Bladin, C.F., & Chambers, B.R. (1993). Clinical features, pathogenesis, and computed tomographic characteristics of internal watershed infarction. Stroke, 24, 1925–1932.Google Scholar
Bowden, S.C. (1989). Maze learning: Reliability and equivalence of alternate pathways. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 3, 137–144.Google Scholar
Bowden, S., Dumendzic, J., Hopper, J., Kinsella, G., Clifford, C., & Tucker, A. (1992). Healthy adults' performance on the Austin Maze. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 43–52.Google Scholar
Bowden, S.C., & McCarter, R.J. (1993). Spatial memory in alcohol-dependent subjects: using a push-button maze to test the principle of equiavailability. Brain and Cognition, 22, 51–62.Google Scholar
Bray, R., & McDonald, S. (2010). Austin Maze. Sydney: Australian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment.Google Scholar
Courville, C.B. (1945). Pathology of the nervous system. Mountain View, California: California Pacific Press.Google Scholar
Crowe, S.F., Barclay, L., Brennan, S., Farkas, L., Gould, E., Katchmarsky, S., & Vayda, S. (1999). The cognitive determinants of performance on the Austin Maze. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 1–9.Google Scholar
Donnan, G.A., Bladin, P.F., Berkovic, S.F., Longley, W.A., & Saling, M.M. (1991). The stroke syndrome of striatocapsular infarction. Brain, 114, 51–70.Google ScholarPubMed
Draper, K., & Ponsford, J. (2008). Cognitive functioning ten years following traumatic brain injury and rehabilitation. Neuropsychology, 22, 618–625.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. (2003). Executive functions and their disorders: Imaging in clinical neuroscience. British Medical Bulletin, 65, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, K.S., Saling, M.M., Conway, E.L., Semple, J.M., & Louis, W.J. (2002). Paired associate performance in the early detection of DAT. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 58–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentry, L.R., Godersky, J.C., & Thompson, B. (1988). MR imaging of head trauma: review of the distribution and radiopathologic features of traumatic lesions. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 9, 101–110.Google Scholar
Hadley, D., Teasdale, G., Jenkins, A., Condon, B., MacPherson, P., Patterson, J., & Rowan, J. (1988). Magnetic resonance imaging in acute head injury. Clinical Radiology, 39, 131–139.Google Scholar
Heaton, R., Chelune, G., Talley, J.L., Kay, G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin card sort test manual: Revised and expanded. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Himanen, L., Portin, R., Isoniemi, H., Helenius, H., Kurki, T., & Tenovuo, O. (2006). Longitudinal cognitive changes in traumatic brain injury: A 30-year follow-up study. Neurology, 66, 187–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocking, J., Thomas, H.J., Dzafic, I., Williams, R.J., Reutens, D.C., & Spooner, D.M. (2013). Disentangling the cognitive components supporting Austin Maze performance in left versus right temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 29, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IBM Corporation. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 22.0. Armonk, New York: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
Johnco, C., Wuthrich, V.M., & Rapee, R.M. (2013). The role of cognitive flexibility in cognitive restructuring skill acquisition among older adults. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 27, 576–584.Google Scholar
Kortte, K.B., Horner, M.D., & Windham, W.K. (2002). The Trail Making Test, Part B: Cognitive flexibility or ability to maintain set? Applied Neuropsychology, 9, 106–109.Google Scholar
Kuehn, S.M., & Snow, W.G. (1992). Are the Rey and Taylor figures equivalent? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, 445–448.Google ScholarPubMed
Levin, H., & Kraus, M.F. (1994). The frontal lobes and traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 6, 443–454.Google Scholar
Malec, J.F., Ivnik, R.J., Smith, G.E., Tangalos, E.G., Petersen, R.C., Kokmen, E., & Kurland, L.T. (1992). Visual Spatial Learning Test: normative data and further validation. Psychological Assessment, 4, 433–441.Google Scholar
Mathias, J.S., Bowden, S.C., Bigler, E.D., & Rosenfeld, J.V. (2007). Is performance on the Wechsler test of adult reading affected by traumatic brain injury? British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 457–466.Google Scholar
Mattson, D.T., Berk, M., & Lucas, M.D. (1997). A neuropsychological study of prefrontal lobe function in the positive and negative subtypes of schizophrenia. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158, 487–494.Google Scholar
McDonald, S. (1993). Pragmatic language skills after closed head injury: Ability to meet the informational needs of the listener. Brain and Language, 44, 28–46.Google Scholar
McKay, A., Lee, S., Stolwyk, R., & Ponsford, J. (2012). Comparing performance of young adults on a computer-based version of the Austin Maze and the conventional form of the test. Brain Impairment, 13, 339–346.Google Scholar
Milner, B. (1965). Visually-guided maze learning in man: Effects of bilateral hippocampal, bilateral frontal, and unilateral cerebral lesions. Neuropsychologia, 3, 317–338.Google Scholar
Morris, P.G., Wilson, J. T., Dunn, L.T., & Teasdale, G.M. (2005). Premorbid intelligence and brain injury. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 209–214.Google Scholar
Paul, R.H., Brickman, A.M., Cohen, R.A., Williams, L.M., Niaura, R., Pogun, S., . . . Gordon, E. (2006). Cognitive status of young and older cigarette smokers: data from the international brain database. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 13, 457–465.Google Scholar
Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.Google Scholar
Ponsford, J., & Kinsella, G. (1992). Attentional deficits following closed-head injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14, 822–838.Google Scholar
Psychological Corporation. (2001). Wechsler Test of Adult Reading. San Antonio, Texas: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Reid, W., Broe, G., Hely, M., Morris, J., Williamson, P., O'Sullivan, D., . . . Moss, N. (1989). The neuropsychology of de novo patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease: The effects of age of onset. International Journal of Neuroscience, 48, 205–217.Google Scholar
Reitan, R.M. (1992). Trail Making Test. Tucson, Arizona: Reitan Neuropsychological Laboratories.Google Scholar
Rey, A. (1941). Psychological examination of traumatic encephalopathy. Archives de Psychologie, 28, 286–340.Google Scholar
Scheid, R., Walther, K., Guthke, T., Preul, C., & von Cramon, D.Y. (2006). Cognitive sequelae of diffuse axonal injury. Archives of Neurology, 63 (3), 418–424.Google Scholar
Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences, 298, 199–209.Google Scholar
Shin, M.-S., Park, S.-Y., Park, S.-R., Seol, S.-H., & Kwon, J.S. (2006). Clinical and empirical applications of the Rey–Osterrieth complex figure test. Nature Protocols, 1, 892–899.Google Scholar
Shores, A., Kraiuhin, C., Zurynski, Y., Singer, A., Gordon, E., Marosszeky, J., & Fearnside, M.R. (1990). Neuropsychological assessment and brain imaging technologies in evaluation of the sequelae of blunt head injury. Australasian Psychiatry, 24, 133–138.Google Scholar
Shum, D.H., Harris, D., & O'Gorman, J.G. (2000). Effects of severe traumatic brain injury on visual memory. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 25–39.Google Scholar
Stolwyk, R.J., Lee, S., McKay, A., & Ponsford, J.L. (2013). Exploring what the Austin Maze measures: A comparison across conventional and computer versions. Brain Impairment, 14, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, E., Sherman, E.M.S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szmukler, G.I., Andrewes, D., Kingston, K., Chen, L., Stargatt, R., & Stanley, R. (1992). Neuropsychological impairment in anorexia nervosa: Before and after refeeding. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14, 347–352.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
Tate, R.L., & Broe, G. (1999). Psychosocial adjustment after traumatic brain injury: What are the important variables? Psychological Medicine, 29, 713–725.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. (2011). The Austin Maze: A marker of right temporal lobe function in epilepsy patients? Honours thesis, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland. Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/ Google Scholar
Tucker, A., Kinsella, G., Gawith, M., & Harrison, G. (1987). Performance on the Austin Maze: Steps towards normative data. Australian Psychologist, 22, 353–359.Google Scholar
Walsh, K. (1994). Neuropsychology: A clinical approach (3rd ed.). Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Third Edition (WAIS-III). San Antonio, Texas: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997b). Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-III). San Antonio, Texas: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar