Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:33:24.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-generated learning in people with multiple sclerosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2006

MICHAEL R. BASSO ,
NATASHA LOWERY ,
COURTNEY GHORMLEY ,
DENNIS COMBS  and
JAY JOHNSON
MICHAEL R. BASSO
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma
NATASHA LOWERY
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma
COURTNEY GHORMLEY
Affiliation:
Department of Geriatrics, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas
DENNIS COMBS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma
JAY JOHNSON
Affiliation:
Tulsa Neurology Clinic, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Memory impairment is among the most common cognitive deficits in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). To remediate this problem, recent research has evaluated the benefits of self-generated encoding. These nascent investigations reveal that people with MS who have mild memory impairment demonstrate a significant memory benefit from self-generated encoding compared with didactic learning. To extend prior research, the present experiment included MS patients with moderate–severe, rather than just mild, memory impairment. Additionally, the experiment evaluated whether self-generated encoding improves memory for activities of daily living instead of abstract words. Specifically, the experiment determined whether self-generated encoding enhanced memory for names, appointments, and object locations. In agreement with and extending prior research, MS patients remembered more information if it was self-generated rather than didactically presented, and this finding occurred despite moderate–severe memory impairment. Furthermore, compared with didactic encoding, self-generation enhanced recall of activities of daily living. Implications of these findings for cognitive rehabilitation and the nature of memory impairment in MS are discussed (JINS, 2006, 12, 640–648.)

Keywords

RehabilitationRetentionRecallRecognitionPaired-associateMemory disorders
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , September 2006 , pp. 640 - 648
Copyright
© 2006 The International Neuropsychological Society

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

REFERENCES

Allen, D.N., Goldstein, G., Heyman, R.A., & Rondinelli, T. (1998). Teaching memory strategies to persons with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 35, 405–411.Google Scholar
Barrett, A.M., Crucian, G.P., Schwartz, R.L., & Heilman, K.M. (2000). Testing memory for self-generated items in dementia: Method makes a difference. Neurology, 54, 1258–1264.Google Scholar
Basso, M.R., Ghormley, C., Lowery, N., & Johnson, J. (2003). Self-generated encoding enhances memory of amnesic MS patients. Paper presented at the 31st annual convention of the International Neuropsychological Society, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Begg, I., Snider, A., Finola, F., & Goddard, R. (1989). The generation effect is no artifact: Generating makes words distinctive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 977–989.Google Scholar
Bobholz, J.A. & Rao, S.M. (2003). Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: A review of recent developments. Current Opinion in Neurology, 16, 283–288.Google Scholar
Burns, D.J. (1992). The consequences of generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 615–633.Google Scholar
Chiaravalloti, N.D. & DeLuca, J. (2002). Self-generation as a means of maximizing learning in multiple sclerosis: An application of the generation effect. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1070–1079.Google Scholar
Dick, M.B., Kean, M.L., & Sands, D. (1989). Memory for internally generated words in Alzheimer-type dementia: Breakdown in encoding and semantic memory. Brain and Cognition, 9, 88–108.Google Scholar
Fischer, J.S., Jak, A.J., Kniker, J.E., & Rudick, R.A. (2001). Multiple sclerosis functional composite: Administration and scoring manual. New York: National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Fischer, J.S., Priore, R.L., Jacobs, L.D., Cookfair, D.L., Rudick, R.A., Herndon, R.M., Richert, J.R., Salazar, A.M., Goodkin, D.E., Granger, C.V., Simon, J.H., Grafman, J.H., Lezak, M.D., O'Reilly-Hovey, K.M., Perkins, K.K., Barilla-Clark, D., Schacter, M., Shucard, D.W., Davidson, A.L., Wende, K.E., Bourdette, D.N., & Kooijmans-Coutinho, M.F. (2000). Neuropsychological effects of interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Annals of Neurology, 48, 885–892.Google Scholar
Heaton, R.K., Miller, S.W., Taylor, M.J., & Grant, I. (2004). Revised comprehensive norms for an expanded Halstead-Reitan Battery: Demographically adjusted neuropsychological norms for African-American and Caucasian adults. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hirshman, E. & Bjork, R.A. (1988). The generation effect: Support for a two-factor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 484–494.Google Scholar
Lincoln, N., Dent, A., Harding, J., Weyman, N., Nicholl, C., Blumhardt, L., & Playford, E.D. (2002). Evaluation of cognitive assessment and cognitive intervention for people with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 72, 93–98.Google Scholar
Martin, R., Hohlfeld, R., & McFarland, H.F. (1996). Multiple sclerosis. In T. Brandt, L.R. Caplan, J. Dichgans, H.C. Diener, & C. Kennard (Eds.), Neurological disorders: Course and treatment (pp. 483–506). New York: Academic Press.
McDaniel, M.A., Waddill, P.J., & Einstein, G.O. (1988). A contextual account of the generation effect: A three-factor theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 521–536.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D.B., Hunt, R.R., & Schmitt, F.A. (1986). The generation effect and reality monitoring: Evidence from dementia and normal aging. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peynircioglu, Z. (1989). The generation effect with pictures and nonsense figures. Acta Psychologica, 70, 153–160.Google Scholar
Poser, C.M., Paty, D.W., Scheinberg, L., McDonald, W.I., Davis, F.A., Ebers, G.C., Johnson, K.P., Sibley, W.A., Silberberg, D.H., & Tourtellotte, W.W. (1983). New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines for research protocols. Annals of Neurology, 13, 227–231.Google Scholar
Rao, S.M., Leo, G.J., Bernardin, L., & Unverzagt, F. (1991). Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: I. Frequency, patterns, and prediction. Neurology, 41, 685–691.Google Scholar
Robertson, I.H. & Murre, J.M.J. (1999). Rehabilitation of brain damage: Brain plasticity and principles of guided recovery. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 544–575.Google Scholar
Slamecka, N.J. & Fevreiski, J. (1983). The generation effect when generation fails. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 153–163.Google Scholar
Slamecka, N.J. & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604.Google Scholar
Slamecka, N.J. & Katsaiti, L.T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 589–607.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A. (1992). Rehabilitation and memory disorders. In L. Squire & N. Butters (Eds.), Neuropsychology of memory (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Wilson, B.A. (2000). Compensating for cognitive deficits following brain injury. Neuropsychology Review, 10, 233–243.Google Scholar