Patients with homonymous visual field defects experience disabling functional impairments as a consequence of their visual loss. Compensatory visual exploration training aims to improve the searching skills of these patients in order to help them to cope more effectively. However, until now the efficacy of this training has not been compared to that of a control intervention. Given that exploration training uses the visual search paradigm, which is known to require visual attention, in this study the efficacy of the technique was compared with training that requires visual attention but not exploration. Participants completed either exploration training (n = 21), or attention training followed by exploration training (n = 21). Assessment of the visual field, visual search, reading and activities of daily living were performed before and after each intervention that the participants completed. The results revealed that both the exploration training and the attention training led to significant improvements in most of the visual tasks. For most of the tasks exploration training did not prove superior to attention training, and for reading both types of intervention failed to yield any benefits. The results indicate that attention plays a large role in the rehabilitation of homonymous visual field defects.

Thomas (2014) 'Ecacy and feasibility of home-based training for individuals with homonymous visual eld defects.', Neurorehabilitation and neural repair., 28 (3). pp. 207-218. Further information on publisher's website:https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968313503219Publisher's copyright statement:The nal denitive version of this article has been published in the journal Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 28, 3, 2014 Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. ABSTRACTVisuospatial neglect is a multicomponent syndrome and one dissociation reported is between neglect for near (peripersonal) and far (extrapersonal) space. Owing to patient heterogeneity and extensive lesions it is difficult to determine the precise neural mechanisms underlying this dissociation using clinical methodology. In this study transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to examine the involvement of three areas in the undamaged brain while participants completed a conjunction search task in near and far space. The brain areas investigated were right posterior parietal cortex (rPPC), right frontal eye field (rFEF), and right ventral occipital cortex (rVO), each of which has been implicated in visuospatial processing. The results revealed a double dissociation whereby rPPC was involved for search in near space only, whilst rVO only became necessary when the task was completed in far space.These data provide clear evidence for a dorsal and ventral dissociation between the processing of near and far space, which is compatible with the functional roles previously attributed to the two streams. For example, the involvement of the dorsal stream in near space reflects its role in vision for action, since it is within this spatial location that actions can be performed. The results also revealed that rFEF is involved in the processing of visual search in both near and far space, and may contribute to visuospatial attention and/or the control of eye-movements irrespective of spatial frame. We discuss our results with respect to their clear ramifications for clinical diagnosis and neurorehabilitation.Lane, 3

The existence of a network of brain regions which are activated when one undertakes a difficult visual search task is well established. Two primary nodes on this network are right posterior parietal cortex (rPPC) and right frontal eye fields. Both have been shown to be involved in the orientation of attention, but the contingency that the activity of one of these areas has on the other is less clear. We sought to investigate this question by using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to selectively decrease activity in rPPC and then asking participants to perform a visual search task whilst undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. Comparison with a condition in which sham tDCS was applied revealed that cathodal tDCS over rPPC causes a selective bilateral decrease in frontal activity when performing a visual search task. This result demonstrates for the first time that premotor regions within the frontal lobe and rPPC are not only necessary to carry out a visual search task, but that they work together to bring about normal function.

NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Brain stimulation. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in Brain stimulation, 5/1, January 2012, 10.1016/j.brs.2011.01.005. Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Objective -This study investigated the effects of long term neuronal modulation to rPPC and rFEF using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with the aim of uncovering sharing of these resources in the processing of conjunction visual search tasks.Methods -Participants completed four blocks of conjunction search trials over the course of 45 minutes. Following the first block they received 15 minutes of either cathodal or anodal stimulation to rPPC or rFEF, or sham stimulation.Results -A significant interaction between block and stimulation condition was found, indicating that tDCS caused differential effects according to the site (rPPC or rFEF) and type of stimulation (cathodal, anodal, or sham). Practice resulted in a significant reduction in reaction time across the four blocks in all conditions except when cathodal tDCS was applied to rPPC.Conclusions -The effects of cathodal tDCS over rPPC are more subtle than those seen with TMS, and no effect of tDCS was evident at rFEF. This suggests that rFEF has a more transient role than rPPC in the processing of conjunction visual search and is robust to longer term methods of neuro-disruption. Our results may be explained within the framework of functional connectivity between these, and other, areas.tDCS and conjunction search 2

Although it has long been known that right posterior parietal cortex (PPC) has a role in certain visual search tasks, and human motion area V5 is involved in processing tasks requiring attention to motion, little is known about how these areas may interact during the processing of a task requiring the speciality of each. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), this study first established the specialization of each area in the form of a double dissociation; TMS to right PPC disrupted processing of a color/form conjunction and TMS to V5 disrupted processing of a motion/form conjunction. The key finding of this study is, however, if TMS is used to disrupt processing of V5 at its critical time of activation during the motion/form conjunction task, concurrent disruption of right PPC now has a significant effect, where TMS at PPC alone does not. Our findings challenge the conventional interpretation of the role of right PPC in conjunction search and spatial attention.

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. (rPPC) is necessary for the completion of conjunction but not feature visual search, regardless of the attentional requirements. One account for this dissociation is that the rPPC is primarily involved in processing spatial information. For target identification, conjunction tasks require that spatial information is used to determine if features occur at the same location, whereas feature search does not require such a process. This account suggests that if the requirement to localize the target is made explicit, then rPPC may also be necessary for feature search. This was examined using TMS and by manipulating the response mode: Participants were either required to press a button indicating the presence/absence of the target or else had to point to the target. TMS over rPPC did not disrupt performance of the feature task when a button press was required but significantly increased response time and movement time for the same task in the pointing condition. Conjunction search in both response conditions was significantly impaired by TMS. Performance on a task that required pointing to a target in the absence of distractors and thus did not involve visual search was unaffected by rPPC stimulation. We conclude that rPPC is involved in coding and representing spatial information and is therefore crucial when the task requires determining whether two features spatially co-occur or when search is combined with explicit target localization via a visuomotor transformation. ■