Search

Unlabelled: Background Neglect is associated with disability, unawareness, poor long-term outcome, and dependence from caregivers. No randomized trial has evaluated the effects of smooth pursuit eye movement training (SPT) and visual scanning training (VST) at the bedside on these variables. Objective To compare the effects of SPT and VST in postacute stroke at 1 month with left neglect., Methods: We carried out an assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. The 24 participants were randomly allocated to either SPT or VST (n = 12 each). They received 20 treatment sessions lasting 30 minutes each at the bedside over 4 weeks. Outcome measures included the Functional Neglect Index (FNI) based on 4 tasks: find objects on a tray, stick bisection, picture search, and gaze orientation. In addition, the Unawareness and Behavioral Neglect Index (UBNI) with 6 items about unawareness and 4 about neglect in activities of daily living, the Help index (required assistance in 10 functional activities), the Barthel Index, and the rehabilitation phase were rated by treatment-blinded assessors. Outcome measures were obtained before and immediately after the end of the interventions and at a 2-week follow-up. Results Significantly greater improvements were obtained after SPT versus VST treatment in the FNI and UBNI, and there were continued improvements selectively in the SPT group 2 weeks later. Conclusions SPT accelerates recovery from functional neglect and reduces unawareness significantly. Bedside neglect treatment using SPT is effective and feasible early after stroke., (© The Author(s) 2013.)

Patients with homonymous hemianopia often show a contralesional shift towards their blind field when bisecting horizontal lines ("hemianopic line bisection error", HLBE). The reasons for this spatial bias are not well understood and debated. Cueing of spatial attention modulates line bisection significantly in patients with visuospatial neglect. Moreover, recent evidence showed that attention training significantly improves deficits of visual search in hemianopia. Here, we tested in 20 patients with chronic homonymous hemianopia (10 left-sided, 10 right-sided) without visual neglect, 10 healthy control subjects, 10 neurological control patients, and 3 patients with left visuospatial neglect and leftsided hemianopia whether spatial cueing influences the HLBE. Subjects indicated verbally the midpoint of horizontal lines in a computerized line bisection task under four experimental cue positions (cue far left, mid-left, mid-right or far-right within the horizontal line). All 20 hemianopic patients showed the typical HLBE towards their blind field, while the two control samples showed only a small but significant leftward shift (pseudoneglect). None of the 4 cueing manipulations had a significant effect on the HLBE in the hemianopic patients. Moreover, no differential effects of cueing on line bisection results were obtained when analyzed in lesion subgroups of hemianopic patients with circumscribed occipital lesions (N=8) as contrasted with patients having more extended (occipito-temporal or temporal) lesions (N=12). This null-effect contrasts with marked cueing effects observed in 3 neglect patients with left hemianopia in the same tasks, showing the principal efficacy of our cueing manipulation. These results argue against attentional explanations of the HLBE., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Patients with homonymous hemianopia often show a contralesional shift towards their blind field when bisecting horizontal lines ('hemianopic line bisection error', HLBE). The reasons for this spatial bias are not well understood and debated. Eccentric fixation and adaptive orienting of eye movements towards the blind field have been suggested as hypothetical explanations but were not tested experimentally yet. Moreover, the role of spatial attention and visual search in the blind field are unsettled issues. Here, we tested in 20 stroke patients with chronic homonymous hemianopia (10 left-sided, 10 right-sided) without visual neglect, 10 healthy control subjects and 10 neurological control patients without hemianopia whether the HLBE is related to (a) eccentric fixation and (b) is influenced by spatial-attentional cueing (left, right) and (c) related to the degree of oculomotor compensation in the blind field. Perimetric mapping of the blind spot in the ipsilesional eye was performed in 39/40 subjects. Both hemianopic patient groups showed the typical HLBE towards their blind field, while the two control samples showed only a small but significant leftward shift known as pseudoneglect. The horizontal and vertical position of the blind spot in the ipsilesional eye was within normal limits in 38 out of 40 subjects, and did not differ significantly between the four samples. Moreover, the HLBE was not significantly correlated to the horizontal or vertical position of the centre of the blind spot, thus excluding eccentric fixation as an explanation for this spatial error. Furthermore, spatial cueing by manipulating the starting position of the bisection cue (left, right) did not affect the HLBE, arguing against attentional cueing effects well known from the line bisection error in patients with spatial neglect. Finally, the size of the saccadic search field in the scotoma was not significantly correlated to the HLBE in hemianopia. We conclude that eccentric fixation, contralesional hyperattention or ipsilesional hypoattention, or good or poor oculomotor compensation of the field loss itself are not likely causes of the HLBE in chronic homonymous hemianopia. Implications of these findings and alternative explanations are discussed., (Copyright © 2012 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)