Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:12:45.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Planning Ability Following Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Performance on a 4-Disk Version of the Tower of London

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

David Shum*
Affiliation:
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia; School of Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. [email protected]
Hannah Gill
Affiliation:
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Australia.
Miranda Banks
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Annick Maujean
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Janelle Griffin
Affiliation:
Brain Injury Rehabilitation Unit, Occupational Therapy Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Heather Ward
Affiliation:
Albany Creek Specialists Centre, Albany Creek, Brisbane, Australia.
*
*Address for correspondence: David Shum, School of Psychology (Mt Gravatt Campus), Griffith University, 176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt, QLD 4122, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

This study aimed to assess planning ability in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) using a 4-disk version of the Tower of London (TOL). Thirty three individuals with TBI were compared with equivalent numbers of matched controls. Overall, the TOL4 was shown to be sensitive to the effects of brain injury, with the TBI group performing significantly more poorly on this version of the planning test than the matched controls. More specifically, group differences were found to be related to the complexity of the planning problems, particularly among a TBI subgroup with localised prefrontal damage. Results of the study provide support for the adverse effects of TBI on planning ability, and the important role of the prefrontal cortex in planning.

Type
Brief Report
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)