Metacognitive Function in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Amadon, G., Weis, L., & Chiou, K. Author

08/01/2020 Added

23 Plays

Description

This project aims to understand metacognitive functioning following a traumatic brain injury.

Searchable Transcript

Search:

[00:00:00.000]Hi, my name is Lauren Weis, and I'm Grace Amadon. Today we are going to
[00:00:06.219]talk about metacognitive functioning in
[00:00:08.575]moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.
[00:00:13.443]Traumatic Brain Injury, or TBI, is an injury
[00:00:15.837]to the brain that is caused by a hit or jolt to
[00:00:18.295]the head that can result in physical, physiological, and/or cognitive deficits.
[00:00:23.030]These injuries account for 2.5 million emergency department visits and 56,800
[00:00:29.045]deaths every year in the United States.
[00:00:31.680]Self-awareness is a cognitive domain that is negatively affected after TBI. Impairments in self-awareness
[00:00:38.592]resulting from a TBI can be detrimental to rehabilitation engagement and functional outcomes.
[00:00:44.214]One specific facet of self-awareness is metacognition,
[00:00:48.400]which refers to one’s awareness of their own thought processes, or their ability to “think about thinking”.
[00:00:53.653]Metacognition can be further broken down into two domains: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experience.
[00:01:00.710]Metacognitive knowledge is one’s general knowledge of their ability to perform a task, such as “I am a good speller.”
[00:01:08.148]Metacognitive experience is an individual’s ability to monitor and evaluate their current, ongoing performance on a task.
[00:01:16.154]For example, someone is able to catch a spelling mistake in the midst of spelling a word out loud.
[00:01:23.062]Metacognitive experience can be measured through judgements of learning (JoL) which are predictions of performance,
[00:01:29.794]and retrospective confidence judgements (RCJ) which are ratings of confidence in the accuracy of one’s performance.
[00:01:37.235]Metacognitive accuracy is determined by comparing one’s own self report to their objective performance.
[00:01:44.573]This can be done by measuring metacognitive bias and metacognitive sensitivity.
[00:01:49.339]Bias measures errors of over or under confidence, whereas sensitivity is the discrepancy between one’s reported confidence and their objective accuracy.
[00:01:59.326]The effects of a traumatic brain injury on metacognition are not fully understood.
[00:02:04.516]Therefore, the purpose of this study was to better understand metacognitive functioning in individuals with moderate to severe TBI.
[00:02:11.829]Knowing this, we predict that individuals who have sustained a traumatic brain injury
[00:02:16.902]will show poor metacognitive accuracy,
[00:02:19.019]as evidenced by low values of metacognitive sensitivity.
[00:02:22.774]To perform this study, 18 adults with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury were recruited from the community; however,
[00:02:30.056]seven (7) of those participants were excluded due to errors in data collection.
[00:02:34.094]This resulted in a sample size of 11 participants.
[00:02:37.215]The demographics, showing the age, education, gender, time since injury, and participant ethnicities are shown to the right.
[00:02:44.484]Each participant completed three (3) runs of a metacognitive paradigm, consisting of 12 true trials
[00:02:51.732]where metacognitive judgements were collected and 4 foil trials, for a total of 16 trials per run.
[00:02:58.624]Foil trials were used intermittently as a distraction to avoid
[00:03:02.929]response bias and increase reliability of responses.
[00:03:05.788]These foil trials asked participants questions such as
[00:03:10.226]"How tired are you?" or "are you paying attention?"
[00:03:12.077]Individuals were presented a meta-working memory paradigm and asked
[00:03:16.024]to identify a target stimulus and assess their future and past performance.
[00:03:21.571]Future performance was indicated by judgements of learning,
[00:03:25.055]and past by retrospective confidence judgements.
[00:03:29.377]The paradigm, shown on the bottom left of the poster, was presented on a computer using a series of slides.
[00:03:35.721]The first slide showed a target stimulus with shapes in various locations.
[00:03:40.057]Participants were instructed to remember the shapes and their locations.
[00:03:44.258]Participants were then asked to provide a JoL response by rating how confident
[00:03:49.689]they would be in identifying the correct target stimulus.
[00:03:52.620]Individuals were presented with four options on the screen
[00:03:57.295]and asked to identify the target stimulus they had just viewed at the
[00:04:01.511]beginning of the trial.
[00:04:03.549]Finally, participants reported a retrospective confidence judgement by
[00:04:07.666]rating how confident they were that their response was correct on a Likert
[00:04:11.231]scale of 1-4, with 1 being low confidence, and 4 being high confidence.
[00:04:16.008]For the purpose of this study, we focused on RCJ in order to monitor
[00:04:22.255]metacognitive bias and sensitivity.
[00:04:24.787]The two measures of metacognitive accuracy that we used and calculated
[00:04:30.080]for each individual were metacognitive bias and metacognitive sensitivity.
[00:04:33.645]Metacognitive bias measures whether the individual made any errors
[00:04:38.576]of over or underconfidence. RCJ scores were first converted from their Likert scale of one to four
[00:04:46.166]into percentages. Then, bias was calculated by subtracting
[00:04:50.221]the percent correct on the stimulus recognition task from the
[00:04:54.219]confidence rating. If this value is zero, the participant shows no bias.
[00:04:58.922]If the value is positive, the participant was overconfident, meaning their
[00:05:03.689]rating was higher than their actual accuracy.
[00:05:07.091]If the value is negative, the participant was underconfident,
[00:05:12.421]meaning their confidence rating was lower than their actual accuracy.
[00:05:14.076]Metacognitive sensitivity was measured using area under the curve analyses.
[00:05:19.759]This is determined by measuring the proportionality between
[00:05:23.013]concordant and discrepant confidence/accuracy responses.
[00:05:27.936]Concordant responses are when a person's confidence
[00:05:30.913]matches their accuracy, such as, they are confident when they are correct,
[00:05:34.392]or, they are not confident when they are incorrect. Discrepant responses are
[00:05:38.312]when the person's confidence rating does not match their accuracy,
[00:05:41.815]so they are not confident but they did answer correctly, or they answered incorrectly,
[00:05:47.022]yet they are confident. These values of AUC can range from 0.5 to one,
[00:05:52.187]with 0.5 representing a low level of metacognitive sensitivity
[00:05:56.568]or poor metacognitive awareness, and one represents a high level
[00:06:00.695]of metacognitive sensitivity, or high metacognitive awareness.
[00:06:04.440]So then, going into our results, based on that, we found that on average,
[00:06:11.361]participants with TBI were accurate in recognizing the correct target
[00:06:14.114]response 48.53 percent of the time. In terms of confidence, individuals with TBI
[00:06:20.403]presented an average rating of 2.24 on a Likert scale of 1-4. This 2.24 can be
[00:06:27.033]translated to an average percentage of 56.7 on a scale of one to 100.
[00:06:32.325]In terms of over/under confidence, we found that the over/under confidence
[00:06:38.541]bias value was 0.08, and because this value is positive, it means that
[00:06:43.177]participants were overconfident in their responses.
[00:06:46.930]And finally, the area under the curve value we found was 0.65. Because this
[00:06:52.583]value is closer to 0.5 than one, it indicates that there is a high
[00:06:55.929]degree of discrepancy between participant's confidence and accuracy
[00:07:00.114]ratings. This shows that individuals with TBI exhibit a low level of metacognitive
[00:07:03.973]sensitivity.
[00:07:06.787]Based on these results, we can conclude that individuals with TBI in this
[00:07:10.679]sample perform poorly on a working memory task. This is consistent with
[00:07:14.822]literature documenting working memory deficits following a TBI.
[00:07:18.742]In addition, participants were low to moderately confident in their responses.
[00:07:24.659]We also found that individuals with TBI tend to make errors of overconfidence,
[00:07:29.037]where they reported being confident in their answers, even when answering
[00:07:31.803]incorrectly.
[00:07:34.917]As discussed prior, we know that an area under the curve value closer
[00:07:38.184]to 0.5 than 1 demonstrates that individuals with TBI have a low level of
[00:07:42.857]metacognitive sensitivity. In this case, an AUC value of 0.65 shows that our
[00:07:48.955]sample had low sensitivity, however, the magnitude of this insensitivity is
[00:07:52.978]unclear because there was no control group for comparison.
[00:07:57.030]Further, without a control group, we cannot confirm that the low sensitivity
[00:08:00.967]was a result of the traumatic brain injury.
[00:08:04.609]In addition, the sample size of this study was also limited: The sample was
[00:08:08.279]predominantly male and seven participants were excluded from analysis
[00:08:11.974]due to errors in data collection, as we mentioned earlier.
[00:08:15.600]The use of neuroimaging in the future would allow a better understanding
[00:08:19.552]of the neural mechanisms involved in these metacognitive deficits that we
[00:08:23.942]found from the study. In addition, interventions aimed at improving
[00:08:27.776]metacognition can be developed. Going forward, the administration of this
[00:08:31.522]paradigm before and after intervention would allow researchers to compare
[00:08:36.784]results and determine effectiveness of the treatment.
[00:08:39.512]So our references are listed below and we would like to thank all of the people listed
[00:08:45.305]for their assistance.
[00:08:46.536]Finally, this research was sponsored by a research grant from the New Jersey
[00:08:49.287]Commission on Brain Injury Research awarded to Doctor Kathy Chiou.

The screen size you are trying to search captions on is too small!

You can always jump over to MediaHub and check it out there.

Comments

0 Comments

Metacognitive Function in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Description

Searchable Transcript

Comments icon comment

Related Channels

Comments