The challenges for the upcoming decade include clarification of the definition of IPS as well as its theoretical conceptualization and a consensus on assessment. Based on the results obtained, we propose a new theoretical model, the tri-factor model of IPS.

Background: Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) have significant impairments in processing speed (PS) and such impairments may underlie other cognitive deficits common in MS and limit performance of everyday life activities.Objective: To examine the efficacy of a computerized PS intervention, Speed of Processing Training (SPT), in persons with MS on PS, memory and everyday activities.Methods: Twenty-one individuals with clinically definite MS and an objectively assessed impairment in PS were included in a controlled randomized clinical trial, randomly assigned to a treatment group or a control group. Participants were assessed prior to and within 1 week of completing the treatment. Outcome measures included traditional neuropsychological tests measuring PS and memory, and an assessment of PS in daily life activities.Results: The treatment group showed a significant improvement on neuropsychological tests of PS and new learning and memory. A significant improvement was additionally noted in the treatment group on measures of PS in everyday life. These changes were not observed in the control group.Conclusions: Results provide preliminary data in support of SPT in treating PS deficits in persons with MS. Additional research is needed with larger samples and more comprehensive outcome measures.

Effective connectivity results reveal that MS individuals with processing speed impairment not only have connections that differ from healthy participants and MS individuals without processing speed impairment, but also have increased strengths of connections.

No abstract

We compared the California Learning Verbal Test II (CVLT II) and the Open Trial-Selective Reminding Test (OT-SRT) in assessing learning in persons with Multiple Sclerosis. One-hundred and twelve participants with multiple sclerosis performed the OT-SRT and the CVLT II on two different days. All participants completed additional cognitive tests assessing information processing speed (IPS), working memory (WM), and executive functions (EF). By definition, all participants were identified as having impaired learning on the OT-SRT (i.e., z score <-1.0); however, only 38 participants (33.9%) were identified as having impaired learning on the CVLT II (i.e., a z score <-1 total correct responses trials 1-5). The sample was thus divided into two groups, those who failed both tests (Fail-2) and those who failed only one (Fail-1). The Fail-2 group showed poorer performance on EF, WM and IPS in comparison with the Fail-1 group. On the CVLT II, the Fail-1 group showed a significantly greater improvement between trials 1 and 5, as compared with the Fail-2 group. However, the two groups performed similarly on the OT-SRT. Correlation analysis showed that EF is positively correlated with CVLT II learning slope but not with OT-SRT learning slope. The CVLT II and the OT-SRT are not equivalent tests: while the CVLT II appears to be sensitive to overall cognitive dysfunction, the OT-SRT is more sensitive to focal learning and memory impairments.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Information processing speed is often impaired in neurological disorders, as well as with healthy aging. Thus, being able to accurately assess information processing speed is of high importance. One of the most commonly used tests to examine information processing speed is the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), which has been shown to have good psychometric properties. OBJECTIVES: The current study aims to examine differences between two response modalities, written and oral, on the performance of an adapted version of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. METHODS: Ninety-nine individuals completed two alternate forms of the adapted version of the SDMT (aSDMT). Participants were instructed to complete the five lines of the task as quickly and accurately as possible. On one form participants were instructed to provide their response in writing and on the other one, orally. Form and response modality (oral vs. written) were counterbalanced to control for practice effects. RESULTS: On average, there was a significant difference between response modalities, such that participants needed more time to respond when the response modality was written. For both response modalities, time to complete each line of stimuli decreased as the task progressed. While changes in response time on the first four lines of stimuli on the oral version were not found, there was a substantial improvement in response time on the fifth line. In contrast, on the written version a gradual learning effect was observed, in which response time was the slowest on the first two lines, an intermediate response time was noted on line 3, and the fastest response time was achieved on lines four and five. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates that response modality, oral versus written, can significantly impact performance efficiency (the length of time it takes to complete a task), but not accuracy (total correct responses), on a new adaptation of the SDMT, the aSDMT.

When comparing differences in functioning between MS disease courses, attention should be paid to the demographic characteristics of the samples. (JINS, 2018, 24, 139-146).