The efficacy of cognitive prosthetic technology for people with memory impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Neuropsychological rehabilitation Vol. 24; no. 3-4; pp. 419 - 444
• Main Authors: Jamieson, Matthew, Cullen, Breda, McGee-Lennon, Marilyn, Brewster, Stephen, Evans, Jonathan J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Routledge 04.07.2014; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Assistive technology; Brain damage; Brain Injuries - complications; Brain Injuries - rehabilitation; Brain injury; Cognitive rehabilitation; Degenerative disease; Efficacy; Handicapped assistance devices; Humans; Memory; Memory aid; Memory Disorders - complications; Memory Disorders - rehabilitation; Memory impairment; Methodology; Neurodegenerative Diseases - complications; Neurodegenerative Diseases - rehabilitation; Older people; Prostheses; Prosthesis; Self-Help Devices; Studies; Systematic review; Task performance; Technology; Cognitive rehabilitation; Memory aid; Memory impairment; Degenerative disease; Assistive technology; Brain injury
• ISSN: 0960-2011; 1464-0694
• DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2013.825632

Technology can compensate for memory impairment. The efficacy of assistive technology for people with memory difficulties and the methodology of selected studies are assessed. A systematic search was performed and all studies that investigated the impact of technology on memory performance for adults with impaired memory resulting from acquired brain injury (ABI) or a degenerative disease were included. Two 10-point scales were used to compare each study to an ideally reported single case experimental design (SCED) study (SCED scale; Tate et al., 2008 ) or randomised control group study (PEDro-P scale; Maher, Sherrington, Herbert, Moseley, & Elkins, 2003 ). Thirty-two SCED (mean = 5.9 on the SCED scale) and 11 group studies (mean = 4.45 on the PEDro-P scale) were found. Baseline and intervention performance for each participant in the SCED studies was re-calculated using non-overlap of all pairs (Parker & Vannest, 2009 ) giving a mean score of 0.85 on a 0 to 1 scale (17 studies, n = 36). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of technology vs. control in seven group studies gave a large effect size (d = 1.27) (n = 147). It was concluded that prosthetic technology can improve performance on everyday tasks requiring memory. There is a specific need for investigations of technology for people with degenerative diseases.