Virtual reality for the assessment of frontotemporal dementia, a feasibility study

Share Embed

Descrição do Produto ISSN 1748-3107 print/ISSN 1748-3115 online Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, Early Online: 1–5 ! 2014 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2014.889230


Virtual reality for the assessment of frontotemporal dementia, a feasibility study Mario F. Mendez1, Aditi Joshi2, and Elvira Jimenez3 Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol Downloaded from by on 02/14/14 For personal use only.


Department of Neurology, Psychiatry & Bio behavioral Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA, and 3V.A. Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA



Purpose: Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a non-Alzheimer dementia characterized by difficulty in documenting social-emotional changes. Few investigations have used virtual reality (VR) for documentation and rehabilitation of non-Alzheimer dementias. Methods: Five bvFTD patients underwent insight interviews while immersed in a virtual environment. They were interviewed by avatars, their answers were recorded, and their heart rates were monitored. They were asked to give ratings of their stress immediately at the beginning and at the end of the session. Results: The patients tolerated the head-mounted display and VR without nausea or disorientation, heart rate changes, or worsening stress ratings. Their insight responses were comparable to real world interviews. All bvFTD patients showed their presence in the VR environment as they moved their heads to face and respond to each avatar’s questions. The bvFTD patients tended to greater verbal elaboration of answers with larger mean length of utterances compared to their real world interviews. Conclusions: VR is feasible and well-tolerated in bvFTD. These patients may have VR responses comparable to real world performance and they may display a presence in the virtual environment which could even facilitate assessment. Further research can explore the promise of VR for the evaluation and rehabilitation of dementias beyond Alzheimer’s disease.

Frontotemporal dementia, insight, virtual reality History Received 10 November 2013 Revised 27 January 2014 Accepted 27 January 2014 Published online 14 February 2014

ä Implications for Rehabilitation   

Clinicians need effective evaluation and rehabilitation strategies for dementia, a neurological syndrome of epidemic proportions and a leading cause of disability. Memory and cognitive deficits are the major disabilities and targets for rehabilitation in Alzheimer’s disease, the most common dementia. In contrast, social and emotional disturbances are the major disabilities and targets for rehabilitation in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), an incompletely understood non-Alzheimer dementia. Virtual reality is a technology that holds great promise for the evaluation and rehabilitation of patients with bvFTD and other non-Alzheimer dementias, and preliminary evidence suggests that this technology is feasible in patients with bvFTD.

Introduction Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a common dementia among those who are 65 years or younger. This neurodegenerative syndrome, previously widely known as ‘‘Pick’s disease’’, differs strikingly from Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in that its defining manifestations are changes in social and emotional behavior [1]. Patients with bvFTD present with socioemotional disengagement, loss of empathy, violations of social norms, or even sociopathic acts [2]. These changes result from

Address for correspondence: Mario F. Mendez, MD, PhD (Neurobehavior), (691/116AF), V.A. Greater Los Angeles Healthcare Centre, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA. Tel: +31 04783711 x42696. E-mail [email protected]

circumscribed atrophy of anterior parts of the frontal lobes and adjacent anterior temporal regions, usually with either tau or TDP-43 positive neuronal inclusions [3]. Clinically, this neuropathology begins in key frontotemporal areas involved in socialemotional behavior, which forms a hub for the ‘‘Salience Network’’, or the neural network involved in the ‘‘Social Brain’’ [4]. Despite the central importance of social-emotional changes in bvFTD, there are barriers in documenting them. Social-emotional interactions are difficult to assess in brief, contrived, and controlled clinical settings, and patient reports are unreliable because these patients have impaired insight into their disease [5]. Moreover, patients with non-AD dementias with frontal lobe involvement often lack initiative or have ‘‘abulia’’, and this lack of verbal or non-verbal behavior and responses otherwise impairs the ability to evaluate the extent and range of their disturbed

Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol Downloaded from by on 02/14/14 For personal use only.


M. F. Mendez et al.

behavior. These barriers to documenting and characterizing their social-emotional disturbances impede the development of rehabilitation strategies targeted at bvFTD. Virtual reality (VR) technology may be an answer to the problem of evaluating disturbed behavior in bvFTD and other non-AD dementias. With the application of VR, it is possible to elicit and examine the patient’s actual interpersonal behavior and responses to avatars while manipulating the social-emotional environment. The immersion of bvFTD patients in a virtual environment also allows the exploration of potential rehabilitation strategies for dealing with their social-emotional changes. For these reasons, VR may be particularly ideal for evaluating patients with bvFTD. Investigators are already using VR through a range of real world social settings such as work, street, parks, and even a supermarket in the related conditions of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD [6]. There has been very little work, however, on the application of VR technology to non-AD dementias like bvFTD, and questions remain as to whether VR is feasible in these patients. It is unclear if VR is too complex and difficult to use in older patients or those with dementia [7], whether they are prone to nausea and other side-effects from wearing a head-mounted display (HMD), and whether they attain sufficient ‘‘presence’’, or the experience of being in the virtual environment [8], for the use of VR to be successful [9]. As an initial step to the application of VR to the socialemotional changes of bvFTD, we assess the feasibility of placing patients with this unique dementia in a virtual environment [10]. This pilot study evaluates whether these behaviorally disturbed patients tolerate the paraphernalia and procedures of VR and have sufficient presence in the virtual environment. This pilot research investigates VR in bvFTD through a program that assesses the most easily tested feature of bvFTD, their loss of insight [11].

Methods Subjects Five patients with bvFTD from a large university-based clinical program were enrolled in this Institutional Review Boardapproved study. The patients met diagnostic criteria for probable bvFTD after an evaluation involving clinical, neuropsychological and neuroimaging assessments [1]. These diagnostic criteria emphasized on dis-inhibition, apathy, loss of sympathy or empathy, repetitive behaviors, and dietary changes and were supported by predominant frontal or anterior temporal changes on magnetic resonance or positron emission tomography imaging. Other inclusion/exclusion criteria included the absence of aphasia or complicating medical or psychiatric illnesses and medications such as psychotropic drugs. In a testing session preceding VR, these patients were further characterized for severity of dementia, frontal lobe functions, and insight questions with a structured interview and a verbal measure of fluency of communication. Severity was further assessed with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [12], the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) [13], and the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) [14]. Frontal lobe functions were evaluated with the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) [15], the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe) [16], and the Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST) [17]. Finally, they underwent the UCLA structured Insight Interview [5], administered by single researcher in real life. Their verbal fluency was then tested with mean length of utterance (MLU) in morphemes [18], a language measure that could be accurately compared across real world and virtual reality samples independent of time length for questioning, latency of responses or pauses, and other, mostly temporal variables.

Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, Early Online: 1–5

Apparatus During the lab session, the participants sat in a chair placed over a bass shaker or tactile transducer, a device that transmits the feel of sound. They wore an eMagin Z800 HMD (Virtually Better Co., Atlanta, GA) that included separate display screens for each eye, integrated head-tracking and stereo earphones. During the VR procedure, the participants underwent continuous psycho-physiological monitoring for heart rate (HR). The HR was measured using BioHarness 3.9 (Biopac Inc., Goleta, CA), an elastic band around the sternum which made a skin contact and transmitted the HR signal. Virtual environment The participants were immersed in an environment consisting of a conference table with five adults (three males and two females) (modified from Virtually Better). The people around the table appeared initially busy (one reading a newspaper, others talking), then would quiet down in order to start the meeting. The avatars were non-threatening individuals, similar to those encountered working in the healthcare field. The participants were seated in a chair at the end of the conference table and told that they would be interviewed by the five avatars. They were asked to answer their questions as if they were real people. The avatars asked a series of questions, one at a time, comprising a subset from the UCLA Insight Interview on cognitive insight (awareness of having a disorder) and emotional insight (concern over having a disorder) [5]. As the participant responded, the avatars gave positive or negative feedback through nodding or shaking their heads. Outcome variables During the VR session, the participants were observed for head turning towards the speaking avatar and readiness to verbally respond. Their verbal responses were audio-recorded and later transcribed for analysis. The responses were categorized for initial yes/no response and analyzed for MLUs, similar to a pre-VR real world intake analysis. Both immediately pre-VR session and postVR session, the participants were asked to self-report their levels of arousal, stress, anxiety, anger, fatigue, and attention using a short, standardized Likert-scale questionnaire. They were also asked to describe any problems with their VR experience, and whether they had any physical discomforts. HR analysis employed the Biopac Acqknowledge program to determine intra-subject differences in HR between baseline (pre-question) and stimulus (7 s post-question) conditions.

Results The five patients who participated included two men and three women with a mean age of 56 SD 12.8 years, disease duration of 3.0 SD 1.6 years, and education of 16 SD 3.2 years. Additional characteristics are as seen in Table 1. For the insight questionnaire, the patients’ VR insight responses (percent ‘‘Yes’’ answers) were compared to a published cohort with bvFTD (44% versus 33%; 2 ¼ 0.72, non-significant), but differed from a published AD sample (44% versus 74%; 2 ¼ 6.04, p50.05) [5]. In other words, the bvFTD patients displayed a lack of insight during VR, with the majority of questions answered ‘‘No’’ regarding both knowledge and concern over having a disorder. However, the bvFTD patients endorsed more problems related to their disease in the VR environment compared to their real world answers to the same insight questions, i.e. they changed six ‘‘No’’ answers (e.g. ‘‘I don’t have a problem’’) to ‘‘Yes’’ answers, although one patient went from ‘‘Yes’’ to ‘‘No’’ on three questions. All patients clearly were engaged with the avatars, turning their heads and looking at each one as they asked questions.


DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2014.889230


Table 1. Characteristics of bvFTD participants (n ¼ 5). Measure Mini-Mental State Examination Clinical Dementia Rating Score Functional Activities Questionnaire Frontal Assessment Battery Frontal Systems Behaviour Scale-BEFORE Frontal Systems Behaviour Scale-AFTER Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Errors Mean Length of Utterances-Real World Mean Length of Utterances-Virtual World

Scores 21.3 1.0 21.5 11.0 81.3 152.3 33.2 0.2 6.8


7.3 0.0 2.9 5.2 17.7 33.0 10.6 0.4 5.1

Interpretation Mild Dementia (cut-off of 23) Mild Dementia (normal ¼ 0) Requires some assistance (max ¼ 30) Mild impairment (cut-off of 12) Normal Abnormal, 42 SD below mean) T-Scores 42.5 SD below mean Significantly greater (t ¼ 2.89, p50.05)

Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol Downloaded from by on 02/14/14 For personal use only.

The Frontal Systems Behaviour Scale is completed by caregivers. BEFORE ¼ retrospective evaluation prior to dementia and AFTER ¼ current status.

Figure 1. Mean Stress Symptom Rating Questionnaire responses, Pre-VR session and Post-VR session. Light bars are Before Ratings and dark bars are After Ratings for the six patients. The bars include standard error bars.

The patients responded to all questions, showing that they were engaged. Compared to their real world insight interview, the patients were more talkative and gave more elaborate answers with details when questioned by the avatars, as evidenced by analyses of the transcripts and larger MLUs for responses in VR (6.80 SD 5.07) compared to in the real world (0.22 SD 0.38); t ¼ 2.89, p50.05. None of the patients endorsed in any physical complaints or discomforts with VR. The mean heart rate increase was only 2.67 SD 1.37 beats per minute for VR versus baseline. There was no significant post-VR versus pre-VR side-effects on the Likert-scale questionnaire as seen in Figure 1.

Discussion This pilot study shows the feasibility of conducting VR work with patients with bvFTD, a common non-AD dementia with onset in middle life. All patients tolerated the procedure well, including wearing the HMD, and there were no side-effects. The bvFTD patients showed presence in the virtual environment as they moved their heads to face and answer the avatars’ questions. An unexpected finding was the presence of greater interaction, and elaboration of comments, with the avatars in the VR environment, than with real people on the non-VR evaluation. Investigators are increasingly using VR in neurological conditions, including AD dementia and MCI, both for assessment and rehabilitation. They have used VR for screening and assessment of memory and visuospatial changes in patients

suspected of AD dementia and MCI [19]. VR has been used to characterize their episodic memory [20], spatial learning and navigation [21,22], and functional status [10,23]. In these populations, VR has also been used for rehabilitation as memory-training programs [24], spatial navigation and route or 3-D environmental learning [25,26], and functional enhancement or enhancement of activities of daily living [7]. In AD and related neurological conditions, VR has proven effective in generalizing the symptoms and therapeutic interventions in the VR environment to the real world, particularly in the visuospatial domain [20,21,25,26], and, although needing further replication, the results of memory training in the VR environment appear very promising [24]. In addition, VR has been feasible in other neurological disorders for the rehabilitation of motor symptoms, including Parkinson’s disease [27], cerebral palsy [28], stroke [29,30] and multiple sclerosis [31]. In contrast, VR has rarely been applied to the assessment and rehabilitation of patients with non-AD dementias. There is one prior VR study in ‘‘Pick’s disease’’ showing topographical memory impairment for items in a complex VR town; however, on review, the patient did not have the clinical syndrome bvFTD [32]. It is time to significantly extend VR technology to the non-AD dementias. VR can target the social-emotional behaviors that occur in bvFTD and in some other non-AD dementias. Investigators have shown VR to be useful for evaluating and promoting socialemotional behavior in subjects with schizophrenia [33], autism [34], and traumatic brain injury [35], as well as adolescents [36]. Recently, studies have shown that VR is valuable for the investigation of sophisticated high-level social behaviors [37], including empowering pro-social behavior [38], assessing the role of proxemics and social salience [39], and assessing the influence of imitation on social influence [40]. Hence, it is reasonable to apply VR to the assessment and rehabilitation of social-emotional behavior among patients with bvFTD and related frontallypredominant dementias. An unexpected finding from this pilot study was that VR facilitated verbal interaction from the bvFTD patients. Contrary to the concern that they might not attain sufficient presence in the virtual environment, the bvFTD patients had no difficulty being and responding in the imaginary world [41]. Compared to a nonVR clinical interview, the patients were more talkative and gave more elaborate answers when questioned in VR by multiple interviewers in a formal interview setting. The reason for this is unclear, but it may reflect an unchallenged sense of presence, or engagement, in the virtual environment [41]. In other words, dementia patients usually have the basic layers of presence, the sense of how their body moves in the virtual environment and an integrated perception of their experience [9,23]. This basic presence is automatic, intuitive, and impressionistic, and is normally followed by analysis and questioning of its reality,

Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol Downloaded from by on 02/14/14 For personal use only.


M. F. Mendez et al.

context, and meaning [8,9,42]. In bvFTD and other frontal lobe disease, there is a known absence of an impulse or trigger for critical appraisal due to disturbance of the ventromedial prefrontal region [43]. Patients with bvFTD or with frontal lobe disease may not analyze the VR experience further and may continue in an unchallenged impressionistic mode without a dilemma arising around its imagined nature. There were, of course, limitations to this pilot study. First of all, it is a feasibility study, meant to evaluate the safety and tolerability of VR in this non-AD dementia. Hence, the number of subjects was small and limits conclusions on the insight interview results. Second, it was not a controlled study, and no conclusions can be reached about performance differences from normal subjects, particularly in regards to facilitating verbal output in this virtual environment. Nevertheless, although preliminary, this pilot data indicates the need to investigate further whether VR can facilitate social-emotional behavior among patients with bvFTD. In conclusion, VR is feasible for patients with bvFTD and may have advantages, including the possibility of facilitating their social-emotional behavior within the virtual environment. The similarity between the qualitative results of the insight interview in real world and VR conditions suggests that the VR environment is at least comparable to a clinical, in-person interview. The findings of facilitated behavior are tentative and must be replicated, but, it is clear that VR environments can be safely extended for the documentation and rehabilitation of the behavioural disturbances that characterize patients with bvFTD and, possibly, other non-AD dementias.

Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, Early Online: 1–5

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Acknowledgements Authors thank Michelle Mather for her assistance in conducting this project.


Declaration of interest


The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article. This work was supported by NIH funding from NIA #R01AG034499-04.

References 1. Rascovsky K, Hodges JR, Knopman D, et al. Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia. Brain 2011;134:2456–77. 2. Mendez MF, Lauterbach EC, Sampson SM. An evidence-based review of the psychopathology of frontotemporal dementia: a report of the ANPCommittee A on Research. Neuropsychiatry J Clin Neurosci 2008;20:130–49. 3. Seelaar H, Rohrer JD, Pijnenburg YA, et al. Clinical, genetic and pathological heterogeneity of frontotemporal dementia: a review. Neurol J Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011;82:476–86. 4. Zhou J, Greicius MD, Gennatas ED, et al. Divergent network connectivity changes in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 2010;133:1352–67. 5. Mendez MF, Shapira JS. Loss of emotional insight in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia or ‘‘frontal anosodiaphoria’’. Conscious Cogn 2011;20:1690–6. 6. Werner P, Rabinowitz S, Klinger E, et al. Use of the virtual action planning supermarket for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment: a preliminary study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2009;27: 301–9. 7. Cherniack EP. Not just fun and games: applications of virtual reality in the identification and rehabilitation of cognitive disorders of the elderly. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:283–9. 8. Garcia L, Aartolo K, Ee´thot-Curtis M. A discussion of the use of virtual reality in dementia. In: Eichenberg C, ed. Virtual reality in psychological, medical and pedagogical applications. InTech; 2012. Available from:

23. 24.


26. 27. 28.


30. 31. 32.

discussion-of-the-use-of-virtual-reality-in-dementia [last accessed 11 Feb 2014]. Riva G, Waterworth JA, Waterworth EL. The layers of presence: a bio-cultural approach to understanding presence in natural and mediated environments. Cyberpsychol Behav 2004;7:402–16. Flynn D, van Schaik P, Blackman T, et al. Developing a virtual reality-based methodology for people with dementia: a feasibility study. Cyberpsychol Behav 2003;6:591–611. Neary D, Snowden JS, Gustafson L, et al. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology 1998;51:1546–54. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. ‘‘Mini-mental state’’. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Psychiatr J Res 1975;12:189–98. Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology 1993;43:2412–4. Pfeffer RI, Kurosaki TT, Harrah Jr CH, et al. Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. Gerontol J 1982;37:323–9. Dubois B, Slachevsky A, Litvan I, et al. The FAB: a frontal assessment battery at bedside. Neurology 2000;55:1621–6. Malloy P, Tremont G, Grace J, et al. The frontal systems behavior scale discriminates frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2007;3:200–3. Dehaene S, Changeux JP. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: theoretical analysis and modeling in a neuronal network. Cereb Cortex 1991;1:62–79. Borovsky A, Saygin AP, Bates E, et al. Lesion correlates of conversational speech production deficits. Neuropsychologia 2007; 45:2525–33. Dejos M, Hauzeon S, Kaoua BN. Virtual reality for clinical assessment of elderly people: early screening for dementia. Rev Neurol 2012;168:404–14. Plancher G, Tirard A, Gyselinck V, et al. Using virtual reality to characterize episodic memory profiles in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: influence of active and passive encoding. Neuropsychologia 2012;50:592–602. Weniger G, Ruhleder M, Lange C, et al. Egocentric and allocentric memory as assessed by virtual reality in individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia 2011;49:518–27. Cushman LA, Ktein S, Duffy CJ. Detecting navigational deficits in cognitive aging and Alzheimer disease using virtual reality. Neurology 2008;71:888–95. Van Schaik P, Martyr A, Blackman T, et al. Involving persons with dementia in the evaluation of outdoor environments. Cyberpsychol Behav 2008;11:415–24. Man DW, Chung JC, Lee GY. Evaluation of a virtual reality-based memory training programme for Hong Kong Chinese older adults with questionable dementia: a pilot study. Int Geriatr J Psychiatry 2012;27:513–20. Tarnanas I, Naskaris L, Msolaki T. On the comparison of VRresponses, as performance measures in prospective memory, with auditory P300 responses in MCI detection. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012;181:156–61. Widmann CN, Ueinhoff B, Riepe MW. Everyday memory deficits in very mild Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 2012;33: 297–303. Klinger E, Chemin I, Lebreton S, et al. Virtual action planning in Parkinson’s disease: a control study. Cyberpsychol Behav 2006;9: 342–7. Rosie JA, Ruhen S, Hing WA, et al. Virtual rehabilitation in a school setting: is it feasible for children with cerebral palsy? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.3109/ 17483107.2013.832414. Moreira MC, de Amorim Lima AM, Ferraz KM, et al. Use of virtual reality in gait recovery among post stroke patients – a systematic literature review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013;8: 357–62. Lewis GN, Woods C, Rosie JA, et al. Virtual reality games for rehabilitation of people with stroke: perspectives from the users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:453–63. Baram Y, Ailler M. Glide-symmetric locomotion reinforcement in patients with multiple sclerosis by visual feedback. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2010;5:323–6. Maguire EA, Lipolotti C. Selective sparing of topographical memory. Neurol J Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998;65:903–9.

DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2014.889230

Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol Downloaded from by on 02/14/14 For personal use only.

33. Rus-Calafell M, Jutierrez G-Maldonado, Jibas R-Sabate. Improving social behaviour in schizophrenia patients using an integrated virtual reality programme: a case study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012;181:283–6. 34. Kandalaft MR, Didehbani N, Krawczyk DC, et al. Virtual reality social cognition training for young adults with high-functioning autism. Autism J Dev Disord 2013;43:34–44. 35. Hanten G, Cook L, Orsten K, et al. Effects of traumatic brain injury on a virtual reality social problem solving task and relations to cortical thickness in adolescence. Neuropsychologia 2011;49:486–97. 36. Paschall MJ, Fishbein DH, Hubal RC, et al. Psychometric properties of virtual reality vignette performance measures: a novel approach for assessing adolescents’ social competency skills. Health Educ Res 2005;20:61–70. 37. Kozlov MD, Johansen MK. Real behavior in virtual environments: psychology experiments in a simple virtual-reality paradigm using video games. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2010;13:711–14.



38. Rosenberg RS, Baughman SL, Bailenson JN. Virtual superheroes: using superpowers in virtual reality to encourage prosocial behavior. PLoS One 2013;8:e55003. 39. Inderbitzin MP, Betella A, Lanata A, et al. The social perceptual salience effect. Exp J Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2013;39: 62–74. 40. Bailenson JN, Nee Y. Digital chameleons: automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychol Sci 2005;16:814–19. 41. Riva G, Gastelnuovo C, Fantovani M. Transformation of flow in rehabilitation: the role of advanced communication technologies. Behav Res Methods 2006;38:237–44. 42. Morewedge CK, Dahneman K. Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends Cogn Sci 2010;14:435–40. 43. Turner M, Moltheart C. Confabulation and delusion: a common monitoring framework. Cogn Neuropsychiatry 2010;15: 346–76.

Lihat lebih banyak...


Copyright © 2017 DADOSPDF Inc.