Principi ed efficacia della riabilitazione cognitiva

  • Anna Basso


L’espressione “riabilitazione cognitiva” è ambigua in quanto utilizzata per definire interventi nettamente diversi tra loro. Molti ricercatori definiscono in tal modo qualunque trattamento di una funzione cognitiva. In questa accezione, “cognitivo” è l’oggetto della riabilitazione — memoria, linguaggio o altro — mentre il tipo di intervento resta indeterminato. In senso più ristretto, si parla di riabilitazione cognitiva per indicare un trattamento riabilitativo basato sui principi della neuropsicologia cognitiva; in questo caso l’aggettivo “cognitivo” si riferisce al tipo di trattamento e non all’oggetto del trattamento, anche se oggetto del trattamento sono funzioni cognitive quali il linguaggio, il calcolo o l’elaborazione spaziale. Un’altra distinzione importante tra queste due accezioni di riabilitazione cognitiva riguarda il focus del trattamento.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kay J, Lesser R, Coltheart M. Psycholinguistic Assessment of Language Processing in Aphasia. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miceli G, Laudanna A, Burani C, Papasso R. Batteria per l’Analisi dei Deficit Afasici. Roma: CEPSAG; 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whurr R, Lorch MP, Nye C. A meta-analysis of studies carried out between 1946 and 1988 concerned with the efficacy of speech and language therapy treatment for aphasic patients. Eur J Disord Commun 1992; 27:1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robey RR. The efficacy of treatment for aphasic persons: A meta-analysis. Brain Lang 1994; 47:582–608.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robey RR. A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in the treatment of aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41:172–187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greener J, Enderby P, Whurr R. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Oxford: Update software, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lincoln NB, McGuirk E, Mulley GP et al. Effectiveness of speech therapy for aphasic stroke patients: A randomized controlled trial. Lancet 1984; 1:1197–1200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wertz RT et al. Comparison of clinic, home, and deferred language treatment for aphasia: A Veterans Administration cooperative study. Arch Neurol 1986; 43:653–658.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cicerone KD et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: Recommendations for clinical practice. Arch Physic Med Rehab 2000; 81:1596–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barbarotto R, Capitani E, Laiacona M. Naming deficits in herpes-simplex encephalitis. Acta Neurol Scandin 1995; 93:272–280.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caramazza A, Shelton JR. Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. J Cogn Neurosci 1998; 10:1–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Warrington EK, McCarthy R. Categories of knowledge: Further fractionations and an attempted integration. Brain 1987; 110:1273–1296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cappa S, Frugoni M, Pasquali P et al. Category-specific naming impairment for artefacts: a new case. Neurocase 1998; 4:391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gainotti G. What the locus of brain lesion tells us about the nature of the cognitive defect underlying category-specific disorders: a review. Cortex 2000; 26:539–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miceli G, Caramazza A. Dissociation of inflectional and derivational morphology. Brain Lang 1988; 35:24–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basso A, Marangolo P, Piras F et al. Acquisition of new “words” in normal subjects. A suggestion for the treatment of anomia. Brain Lang 2001; 77:45–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grice P. Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan J (ed). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. Londra: Academic Press; 1975:41–58.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hécaen H, Angelergues R, Houiller S. Les varietés cliniques des acalculies au cours des lesions rétrorolandiques. Approche statistique du problème. Rev Neurol 1961; 105:85–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCloskey M, Aliminosa D, Sokol SM. Facts, rules and procedures in normal calculation: Evidence from multiple single-patient studies of impaired arithmetic fact retrieval. Brain Cogn 1991; 17:154–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCloskey M. Cognitive mechanisms in numerical processing: Evidence form acquired dyscalculia. Cognition 1992; 44:107–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sokol SM, McCloskey M, Cohen NJ, Aliminosa D. Cognitive processes and representations in arithmetic: Inferences from the performance of brain-damaged patients. J Exp Psych: Learn, Mem Cogn 1991; 17:355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Basso A, Beschin N. Number transcoding and number word spelling in a left-brain-damaged non-aphasic acalculic patient. Neurocase 2000; 6:129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miceli G, Capasso R. I disturbi del calcolo. Diagnosi e riabilitazione. Milano: Masson; 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hittmair-Delazer M, Semenza C, Denes G. Concepts and facts in calculation. Brain 1994; 117:715–728.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Girelli L, Delazer M, Semenza C et al. The representation of arithmetical facts: Evidence from two rehabilitation studies. Cortex 1996; 32: 49–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Girelli L, Bartha L, Delazer M. Strategic learning in the rehabilitation of semantic knowledge. Neuropsychol Rehab 2002; 12:41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stone SP, Halligan PW, Greenwood RJ. The incidence of neglect phenomena and related disorders in patients with an acute right or left-hemisphere stroke. Age and Ageing 1993; 22:46–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sea MC, Henderson A, Cermack SA. Patterns of visual spatial inattention and their functional significance in stroke patients. Arch Physic Med Rehab 1993; 74:355–361.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cherney LR, Halper AS, Kwasnica CM et al. Recovery of functional status after right hemisphere stroke: Relationship with unilateral neglect. Arch Physic Med Rehab 2001; 82:322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paolucci S, Antonucci G, Grasso M et al. The role of unilateral spatial neglect in rehabilitation of right-braindamaged ischemic stroke patients: A matched comparison. Arch Physic Med Rehab 2001; 82:743–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Manly T. Cognitive rehabilitation for unilateral neglect. Neuropsychol Rehab 2002; 12:289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pizzamiglio L, Antonucci G, Judica A et al. Cognitive rehabilitation of the hemineglect disorder in chronic patients with unilateral right brain-damage. J Clinic Exp Neuropsychol 1992; 14:901–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rossetti Y, Rode G, Pisella L et al. Prism adaptation to a rightward optical deviation rehabilitates left hemispatial neglect. Nature 1998; 395:166–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frassinetti F, Angeli V, Meneghello F, Avanzi S, Ladavas E. Long-lasting amelioration of visuospatial neglect by prism adaptation. Brain 2002; 125:608–623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Halligan PW, Manning L, Marshall J. Hemispheric activation vs. spatio-motor cueing in visual neglect: A case study. Neuropsychologia 1990; 32:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Robertson IH, North N, Geggie C. Spatio-motor cueing in unilateral neglect: Three single case studies of its therapeutic effectiveness. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 1992; 55:799–805.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Godfrey HPD, Knight RG. Cognitive rehabilitation of memory functioning in amnesiac alcoholics. J Consult Clinic Psychol 1985; 53:555–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Berg IJ, Konin-Haanstra M, Deelman BG. Long-term effects of memory rehabilitation: a controlled study. Neuropsychol Rehab 1991; 1:87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Middleton DK, Lambert MJ, Seggar LB. Neuropsychological rehabilitation: microcomputer-assisted treatment of brain-injured adults. Percept Motor Skills 1991; 72:527–530.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wilson B, Emslie HC, Quirk K et al. Reducing everyday memory and planning problems by means of a paging system: a randomised control crossover study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2001; 70:477–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hersch N, Treadgold I. Neuro-Page: the rehabilitation of memory dysfunction by prosthetic memory and cueing. Neurorehab 1994; 4:187–197.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Caporali A, Basso A. A survey on long-term outcome of aphasia and of aphasics’ chances of gainful employment 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Basso
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze NeurologicheUniversità degli StudiMilano

Personalised recommendations