Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A prospective study of the recovery of attention from acute to 2 years following pediatric traumatic brain injury

CATROPPA, CATHY, ANDERSON, VICKI·2005·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
DOI 10.1017/s1355617705050101
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Limited research has investigated specific attentional sequelae following pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI), such as sustained, selective, and shifting attention, as well as speed of processing. Little is known about the pattern of recovery of these skills or their interaction with ongoing development. The present study examined attentional abilities at acute, 6-, 12-, and 24-month time points postinjury in a group of 71 children who had sustained a mild, moderate, or severe TBI. Results indicated that children who sustained a severe TBI generally performed poorest, but showed most recovery over time. The pattern of recovery was dependent on the attentional component being measured. Specifically, deficits were most evident on more complex and timed tasks. While a number of areas showed recovery over time, for some attentional components, difficulties persisted to 24 months postinjury. (JINS, 2005,11, 84–98.)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1355617705050101

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Taylor, G.H. , Schatsneider, C. , & Rich, D. (1992).Sequelae of Haemophilus Influenzae meningitis: Implications for thestudy of brain disease and development. In M.G. Tramontana & S.R. Hooper (Eds).Advances in child neuropsychology: Volume 1. (pp.50–108).New York:Springer-Verlag. · DOI
  2. Mirsky, A.F. , Anthony, B.J. , Duncan, C.C. , Ahearn, M.B. , & Kellam, S.G. (1991).Analysis of the elements of attention: A neuropsychologicalapproach.Neuropsychology Review,2,109–145. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Catroppa, C. , Anderson, V. , & Stargatt, R. (1999).A prospective analysis of the recovery of attention followingpediatric head injury.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,5,48–57. · DOI
  4. Kail, R. (1986).Sources of age differences in speed of processing.Child Development,57,969–987. · DOI
  5. Talland, G.A. (1965).Deranged memory.New York:Academic Press.
  6. Rothi, L. & Horner, J. (1983).Restitution and substitution: Two theories of recovery withapplication to neurobehavioral treatment.Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology,3,73–81. · DOI
  7. Brouwer, W.H. , Rothengatter, J.A. , & Van Wolfelaar, P.C. (1988).Compensatory potential in elderly drivers. In J.A. Rothengatter & R.A. DeBruin (Eds.),Road user behavior: Theory and research (pp.296–301).Van Gorcum, The Netherlands:Assen.
  8. Stuss, D.T. , Stethem, L.L. , Hugenholtz, H. , Picton, T. , Pivik, J. , & Richard, M.T. (1989).Reaction time after head injury: Fatigue, divided and focussedattention and consistency of performance.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry,52,742–748. · DOI · Paper page
  9. McKay, K.E. , Halperin, J.M. , Schwartz, S.T. , & Sharma, V. (1994).Developmental analysis of three aspects of information processing:Sustained, attention, selective attention, and responseorganization.Developmental Neuropsychology,10,121–132. · DOI
  10. Gronwall, D. , Wrightson, P. , & McGinn, V. (1997).Effect of mild head injury during the preschool years.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,3,592–597. · DOI
  11. Maule, A.J. , Hockey, G.R.J. , & Bdzola, L. (2000).Effects of time pressure on decision-making under uncertainty:Changes in affective state and information processing strategy.Acta Psychologica,104,283–301. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Levin, H.S. , Song, J. , Scheibel, R.S. , Fletcher, J.M. , Harward, H. , Lilly, M.M. , & Goldstein, F. (1997).Concept formation and problem-solving following closed head injuryin children.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,3,598–607. · DOI
  13. Lennenberg, E. (1967).Biological foundations of language.New York:Wiley.
  14. Laurence, S. & Stein, D. (1978).Recovery after brain damage and the concept of localisation offunction. In S. Finger (Ed.),Recovery from brain damage (pp.369–407).New York:Plenum Press. · DOI
  15. Sparrow, S. , Balla, D.A. , & Cicchetti, D.V. (1984).Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview Edition. Survey FormManual.Circle Pines, MN:American Guidance Services.
  16. van Zomeren, A.H. & Brouwer, W. (1994).Clinical neuropsychology of attention.New York:Oxford.
  17. Chadwick, O. , Rutter, M. , Thompson, J. , & Shaffer, D. (1981c).Intellectual performance and reading skills after localized headinjury in childhood.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,22,117–139. · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1981.tb00538.x
  18. 10.1080/09297049708401366 · DOI
  19. Chadwick, O. , Rutter, M. , Brown, G. , Shaffer, D. , & Traub, M. (1981a).A prospective study of children with head injuries: II. Cognitivesequelae.Psychological Medicine,11,49–61. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1989) Using multivariate statistics(2nd ed.)New York:Harper and Row Publishers.
  21. 10.1080/01688639208402865 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1080/87565649009540465 · DOI
  23. 10.1207/S15326942DN2001_5 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Robin, D.A. , Max, J.E. , Stierwalt, J.A.G. , Guenzer, L.C. , & Lindgren, S.D. (1999).Sustained attention in children and adolescents with traumaticbrain injury.Aphasiology,13,701–708. · doi:10.1080/026870399401812
  25. 10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91639-0 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Goldstein, F.C. & Levin, H.S. (1985).Intellectual and academic outcome following closed head injury inchildren and adolescents: Research strategies and empiricalfindings.Developmental Neuropsychology,1,195–214. · DOI
  27. Anderson, V. & Fenwick, T. (1998).Attentional skills following traumatic brain injury: A componentialanalysis.Brain Injury,12,937–949. · DOI
  28. Anderson, V. & Pentland, L. (1998).Residual attention deficits following childhood head injury:Implications for ongoing development.Neuropsychological Rehabilitation,8,283–300. · DOI
  29. Halperin, J.M. (1991).The clinical assessment of attention.International. Journal. of Neuroscience,58,171–182. · DOI
  30. Dennis, M. (1989).Language and the young damaged brain. In T. Boll & B. Bryant (Eds.),Clinical neuropsychology and brain function: Research, measurementand practice. (pp.85–124).Washington, DC:American Psychiatric Association.
  31. Kaufmann, P.M. , Fletcher, J.M. , Levin, H.S. , Miner, M.E. , & Ewing-Cobbs, L. (1993).Attentional disturbance after pediatric closed head injury.Journal of Child Neurology,8,348–353. · DOI
  32. Anderson, V. & Moore, C. (1995).Age at injury as a predictor following pediatric head injury: Alongitudinal perspective.Child Neuropsychology,1,187–202 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Dennis, M. , Wilkinson, M. , Koski, L. , & Humphreys, R.P. (1995).Attention deficits in the long term after childhood head injury.In S.H. Broman & M.E. Michel. (Eds.),Traumatic head injury in children (pp.165–187).New York:Oxford University Press.
  34. 10.1093/jpepsy/14.4.531 · DOI
  35. Wood, R.L. (1988).Attention disorders in brain injury rehabilitation.Journal of Learning Disabilities,21,327–332. · DOI
  36. 10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80037-9 · DOI
  37. Donders, J. & Warschausky, S. (1997).WISC–III factor index score patterns after traumatic headinjury in children.Child Neuropsychology,3,71–78. · DOI
  38. Chadwick, O. , Rutter, M. , Shaffer, D. , & Shrout, P.E. (1981b).A prospective study of children with head injuries: IV Specificcognitive defects.Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology,2,101–120. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Kolb, B. & Gibb, R. (1999).Neuroplasticity and recovery of function after brain injury. In D. Stuss , G. Winocur , & I. Robertson (Eds.),Cognitive neurorehabilitation (pp.9–25).New York:Cambridge University Press.
  40. Levin, H.S. , High, W.M. , Goethe, K.F. , Sisson, R.A. , Overall, J.E. , Rhoades, H.M. , Eisenberg, H.M. , Kalisky, Z. , & Gary, H.E. (1987).The neurobehavioral rating scale: Assessment of the behavioralsequelae of head injury by the clinician.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry,50,183–193. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Murray, R. , Shum, D. , & McFarland, K. (1992).Attentional deficits in head-injured children: An informationprocessing analysis.Brain and Cognition,18,99–115. · DOI
  42. 10.1016/0003-9993(93)90156-5 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
CATROPPA, C., & ANDERSON, V.
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2005-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
84-98
ISSN
  • 1355-6177
  • 1469-7661
DOI
10.1017/s1355617705050101
Cited by
64
References
2
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 27 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.