Neuropsychological Rehabilitation of Spontaneous Confabulation

Memory Disorders Clinical Trial

Official title:

Study of the Neuroanatomical Circuits, Predictors and Prognostic Factors of Spontaneous Confabulation: Designing an Assessment and Rehabilitation Program

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT02540772
• Other study ID #: Conf-01
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• First received: August 15, 2015
• Last updated: February 9, 2016
• Start date: April 2013
• Est. completion date: April 2015

Study information

• Verified date: February 2016
• Source: San Rafael University Hospital, Granada, Spain
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: Spain: Ethics Committee
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Confabulators consistently generate false memories without intention to deceive and with great feeling of rightness. However, there is currently no known effective treatment for them. In order to fill this gap, the aim of this trial was to design a neuropsychological treatment based on the current theoretical models and test it experimentally in two groups of confabulators: experimental vs. control. The treatment consisted of some brief material that patients had to learn and recall at both immediate and delayed moments. After both recollections, patients were given feedback about their performance (errors and correct responses). Pre-treatment and post-treatment baselines were administered. Confabulators in the control group performed the baselines without treatment, and were then offered the treatment after the second baseline.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 20
• Est. completion date: April 2015
• Est. primary completion date: April 2015
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Both
• Age group: 35 Years to 86 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• The presence of spontaneous confabulations after acute brain injury, for at least three months and without clinical improvement (interfering with the patient's daily life with frequent arguments and exhaustive supervision).

• The presence of momentary confabulations in the Spanish adaptation of Dalla Barba provoked confabulation interview.

• Prior to injury, all patients should be completely independent for daily living.

Exclusion Criteria:

• The presence of impairment in alertness.

• Dementia.

• Acute confusional state.

• A history of alcohol or drug abuse.

• Psychiatric antecedents.

Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Single Blind (Subject), Primary Purpose: Treatment

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Memory Disorders

Intervention

Behavioral:
• Neuropsychological treatment
Participants had to learn some brief material (words, faces, pictures, news), after which they were asked for an immediate and a delayed recall. After both recalls, participants were confronted with feedback about correct responses, non-responses and errors (i.e., confabulations and errors of attribution). This type of feedback worked on: 1) selective attention during the learning phase, training patients to focus on the relevant details of the stimuli; 2) monitoring processes during the retrieval phase, reinforcing the strategic search and training patients to inhibit traces that were irrelevant; and 3) memory control processes after the retrieval phase. The treatment consisted of 9 sessions and lasted for 3 weeks and the participants performed a baseline before and after treatment.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Spain	San Rafael University Hospital	Granada

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Monica Triviño Mosquera

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Spain, 

References & Publications (8)

Ciaramelli E, Ghetti S, Borsotti M. Divided attention during retrieval suppresses false recognition in confabulation. Cortex. 2009 Feb;45(2):141-53. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.10.006. Epub 2008 Feb 6. — View Citation

Dalla Barba G, Decaix C. "Do you remember what you did on March 13, 1985?" A case study of confabulatory hypermnesia. Cortex. 2009 May;45(5):566-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2008.03.009. Epub 2008 Jun 5. — View Citation

Dayus B, Van den Broek MD. Treatment of stable delusional confabulations using self-monitoring training. Neuropsychol Rehabil, 2000; 10(4):415-427.

Del Grosso Destreri N, Farina E, Calabrese E, Pinardi G, Imbornone E, Mariani C. Frontal impairment and confabulation after herpes simplex encephalitis: A case report. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Mar;83(3):423-6. — View Citation

Gilboa A, Alain C, Stuss DT, Melo B, Miller S, Moscovitch M. Mechanisms of spontaneous confabulations: a strategic retrieval account. Brain. 2006 Jun;129(Pt 6):1399-414. Epub 2006 Apr 25. — View Citation

Moscovitch M, Melo B. Strategic retrieval and the frontal lobes: evidence from confabulation and amnesia. Neuropsychologia. 1997 Jul;35(7):1017-34. — View Citation

Nahum L, Bouzerda-Wahlen A, Guggisberg A, Ptak R, Schnider A. Forms of confabulation: dissociations and associations. Neuropsychologia. 2012 Aug;50(10):2524-34. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.06.026. Epub 2012 Jul 7. — View Citation

Schnider A. The confabulating mind. How the brain creates reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Number of Confabulations	The confabulations recorded were 1) guessed answers, 2) confusions in time and space, 3) a mixture of two or more stimuli presented, and 4) devised or bizarre responses.; Scores ranged from 0 (no confabulations) to unlimited number of them (because devised or bizarre responses were recorded) and consisted of the sum of all the confabulations produced during the baseline. The values in the table represent the mean of confabulations for each group (Neuropsychological treatment or No treatment) in the 3 sessions at each baseline (pre- and post-treatment).	Measures were recorded during 3 sessions administered in 1 week before (pre-baseline) and during 3 sessions after the treatment (post-baseline). In the control group, pre and post baselines were also recorded but without any treatment between them	No
Primary	Number of Correct Responses	Scores ranged from 0 (no correct answers) to 72 (12 stimuli remembered twice in each session: firstly, in a immediate recall after learning, and secondly, in a delayed recall after 10 minutes).; The values in the table represent the mean of correct responses for each group (Neuropsychological treatment or No treatment) in the 3 sessions at each baseline (pre- and post-treatment).	Measures were recorded during 3 sessions administered in 1 week before (pre-baseline) and during 3 sessions after the treatment (post-baseline). In the control group, pre and post baselines were also recorded but without any treatment between them	No
Primary	Number of Non-responses	Scores ranged from 0 (no non-responses) to 72 (12 stimuli remembered twice in each session: firstly, in a immediate recall after learning, and secondly, in a delayed recall after 10 minutes).; The values in the table represent the mean of non-responses for each group (Neuropsychological treatment or No treatment) in the 3 sessions at each baseline (pre- and post-treatment).	Measures were recorded during 3 sessions administered in 1 week before (pre-baseline) and during 3 sessions after the treatment (post-baseline). In the control group, pre and post baselines were also recorded but without any treatment between them	No
Secondary	Number of Errors in Source Attribution	After the recall of the material, patients were also asked to remember which modality corresponded to each recall (i.e., seen, heard or imagined), and who had presented the material during the learning session (i.e., the therapist or themselves).; Scores ranged from 0 (if all answers were non-responses) to unlimited number (depending on number of confabulations produced by patients).; The values in the table represent the mean of errors in source attribution for each group (Neuropsychological treatment or No treatment) in the 3 sessions at each baseline (pre- and post-treatment).	Measures were recorded during 3 sessions administered in 1 week before (pre-baseline) and during 3 sessions after the treatment (post-baseline). In the control group, pre and post baselines were also recorded but without any treatment between them	No