Naturalistic action impairment in closed head injury.
Naturalistic action impairment in closed head injury.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0894-4105.12.1.13
复制
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
M. Schwartz;Michael W. Montgomery;L. Buxbaum;Sonia S Lee;T. Carew;H. Coslett;M. Ferraro;E. Fitzpatrick-desalme;T. Hart;N. Mayer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Schwartz;Michael W. Montgomery;L. Buxbaum;Sonia S Lee;T. Carew;H. Coslett;M. Ferraro;E. Fitzpatrick-desalme;T. Hart;N. Mayer
作者试图确定闭合性脑损伤（CHI）患者的行为错误是否符合额叶理论的预测。在研究1中，30名CHI患者和18名正常对照进行常规活动，如包装礼物，在分级复杂性的条件下。即使在最简单的条件下，CHI患者也犯了更多的错误;但是，除了省略动作的比例较高外，他们的错误特征与对照组非常相似。研究2涉及在研究1中表现在正常范围内的患者亚组。当这些高功能患者被要求在更繁重的条件下完成常规任务时，他们犯的错误也超过了对照组。基于额叶机制的解释很难解释研究结果的总体模式。提出了一种基于有限容量资源的替代方案。
The authors sought to determine whether errors of action committed by patients with closed head injury (CHI) would conform to predictions derived from frontal lobe theories. In Study 1, 30 CHI patients and 18 normal controls performed routine activities, such as wrapping a present, under conditions of graded complexity. CHI patients committed more errors even on the simplest condition; but, except for a higher proportion of omitted actions, their error profile was very similar to that of controls. Study 2 involved a subset of patients whose performance in Study 1 was within normal limits. When these high functioning patients were asked to perform the routine tasks under still more taxing conditions, they, too, committed errors in excess of the control group. Accounts based on frontal mechanisms have a difficult time explaining the overall pattern of findings. An alternative based on limited-capacity resources is suggested.