4.3 Article

Information processing speed in multiple sclerosis: Past, present, and future

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 772-789

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458516645869

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; processing speed; working memory; cognitive assessment

Funding

  1. National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) [H133A070037, H133G090078, 90SF0012-01-00]
  2. Kessler Foundation
  3. Hearst Foundation [13-86563]
  4. NIDILRR [H133A070037, H133G090078]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Information processing speed (IPS) is a prevalent cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis (MS). Objectives: This review aims to summarize the methods applied to assess IPS in MS and its theoretical conceptualization. A PubMed search was performed to select articles published between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2013, resulting in 157 articles included. Results: The majority (54%) of studies assessed IPS with heterogeneous samples (several disease courses). Studies often report controlling for presence of other neurological disorders (60.5%), age (58.6%), education (51.6%), alcohol history (47.8%), or use of steroids (39.5%). Potential confounding variables, such as recent relapses (50.3%), history of developmental disorders (19.1%), and visual problems (29.9%), were often neglected. Assessments used to study IPS were heterogeneous (ranging from simple to complex tasks) among the studies under review, with 62 different tasks used. Only 9.6% of articles defined the construct of IPS and 22.3% discussed IPS in relation to a theoretical model. Future directions: 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available