Do Neglect Assessments Detect Neglect Differently?

Grattan, Emily; Woodbury, Michelle

doi:10.5014/ajot.2017.025015

Cited by 16 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CBS is a functional neglect assessment because it assesses neglect through observation of activities such as eating and locomotion (i.e., collisions, navigation items). The CBS has items that assess for personal, peripersonal, and extrapersonal neglect and the type of neglect each item assesses has been delineated (Grattan & Woodbury, 2017; Plummer, Morris, & Dunai, 2003). Assessors score 10 items using a 4-point scale (Azouvi, 1996).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Anosognosia of Neglect

Grattan

Skidmore

Woodbury

2017

OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Unilateral neglect (neglect) and anosognosia often co-occur post-stroke. It is unknown whether anosognosia of neglect varies for different types of daily activities. Objectives To examine the frequency of anosognosia of neglect for items on the Catherine Bergego Scale (CBS) and determine the level of agreement between participant/assessor item ratings and total scores. Methods Secondary analysis of data. We conducted descriptive analyses and inter-rater reliability analyses (Cohen’s kappa) to determine the level of agreement between assessor and participant item ratings. A paired t-test was conducted to compare assessor and participant total scores. Results The frequency of anosognosia amongst items varied (29.2%-83.3%), and Kappa statistics ranged from −0.07 (no agreement) to 0.23 (fair agreement) for item ratings. There was a significant difference t(36) =3.02, p≤.01) between assessor (M=8.0, SD= 5.2) and participant-rated (M=5.3, SD=4.5) total CBS scores. Conclusion Anosognosia is prevalent among those with neglect. Findings highlight the importance of assessing for anosognosia.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Anosognosia of Neglect

Grattan

Skidmore

Woodbury

2017

OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Approximately, 50% of patients who suffered from right-brain stroke manifest unilateral spatial neglect (USN), a complex and heterogeneous attentional-perceptual syndrome characterized by a difficulty or inability to pay attention, detect, and orient toward stimuli presented in the contralesional side (Heilman, et al, 2000 ; Tsirlin et al, 2009 ; Pedroli et al, 2015 ; Rode et al, 2017 ; Zigiotto et al, 2020 ). USN can be divided into several subcategories, depending on whether the behavior is elicited by a sensory, motor, or representational modality, or whether it involves one’s peripersonal, extra-personal, or spatial representation (Plummer et al, 2003 ; Buxbaum et al, 2004 ; Grattan and Woodbury, 2017 ). Thus, USN can also be referred to as visuospatial neglect (VSN), visual neglect (VN), and hemispatial neglect (HSN).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients’ impaired judgment of distances from objects could also reflect an ipsilesional shift of their subjective midline, which acts as a framework for goal-directed walking and spatial orientation (Karnath et al, 1991 ; Richard et al, 2004 ; Aravind and Lamontagne, 2018 ). USN patients also tend to miss words while reading (Kim et al, 2015 ; Sugihara et al, 2016 ; Yasuda et al, 2017 , 2018 ), and present a reduced ability to manage both basic and instrumental activities of daily living (BADL and IADL, respectively), such as autonomously bathing or grocery shopping (Buxbaum et al, 2004 ; Grattan and Woodbury, 2017 ). Furthermore, USN patients manifest different degrees of unawareness of their impairments (i.e., anosognosia) and this condition is associated with motor, cognitive, and sensory deficits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual reality for the assessment and rehabilitation of neglect: where are we now? A 6-year review update

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unilateral spatial neglect (USN) is a frequent repercussion of a cerebrovascular accident, typically a stroke. USN patients fail to orient their attention to the contralesional side to detect auditory, visual, and somatosensory stimuli, as well as to collect and purposely use this information. Traditional methods for USN assessment and rehabilitation include paper-and-pencil procedures, which address cognitive functions as isolated from other aspects of patients’ functioning within a real-life context. This might compromise the ecological validity of these procedures and limit their generalizability; moreover, USN evaluation and treatment currently lacks a gold standard. The field of technology has provided several promising tools that have been integrated within the clinical practice; over the years, a “first wave” has promoted computerized methods, which cannot provide an ecological and realistic environment and tasks. Thus, a “second wave” has fostered the implementation of virtual reality (VR) devices that, with different degrees of immersiveness, induce a sense of presence and allow patients to actively interact within the life-like setting. The present paper provides an updated, comprehensive picture of VR devices in the assessment and rehabilitation of USN, building on the review of Pedroli et al. (2015). The present paper analyzes the methodological and technological aspects of the studies selected, considering the issue of usability and ecological validity of virtual environments and tasks. Despite the technological advancement, the studies in this field lack methodological rigor as well as a proper evaluation of VR usability and should improve the ecological validity of VR-based assessment and rehabilitation of USN.

show abstract

“…In this study, we propose making a distinction between static tests, with low levels of cognitive demand, and dynamic tests, with high levels of cognitive demand. It is not simply the case that dynamic tests are more challenging than static tests, as extensive research has showed dissociations between performances on static versus dynamic tests (Azouvi, 2002;Azouvi et al, 2006;Grattan & Woodbury, 2017;Hamilton et al, 2008). For example, patients may show VSN on the MAC or a Virtual Reality test, but not on a cancellation test, and vice versa (Azouvi et al, 2006;Grech et al, 2017;Peskine et al, 2011;Spreij et al, 2020;Ten Brink et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing cognitive demand in assessments of visuo-spatial neglect: Testing the concepts of static and dynamic tests

Spreij

Brink

Visser-Meily

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Numerous tests of visuo-spatial neglect (VSN) have been developed. In this study, we propose a clustering of VSN tests by making a distinction between static tests with low levels of cognitive demand (i.e. tests without movement or time-restrictions, such as paper-and-pencil tests) and dynamic tests with high levels of cognitive demand (i.e. tests incorporating movement and timerestrictions, such as virtual reality tests). The concepts of static and dynamic tests have not been systematically investigated so far. Here, we investigated (1) whether we would find dissociations between patients showing VSN on test within the static cluster but not on tests within the dynamic cluster, and vice versa; (2) whether differences in demographic or clinical characteristics could be identified between these groups of patients; and (3) whether the underlying factor structure would correspond to our proposed distinction between static and dynamic clusters of tests. Method: Sixty-one patients with VSN completed three static tests (shape cancellation, line bisection, letter cancellation) and three dynamic tests (Catherine Bergego Scale, Mobility Assessment Course, simulated driving test). Results: Thirteen percent of patients showed VSN on tests within the static cluster, 33% on tests within the dynamic cluster, and 54% on tests within both clusters. Patients with VSN on the dynamic tests (alone or in addition to static tests) had poorer motor function, poorer walking abilities and were more dependent in daily life than patients showing VSN on the static cluster alone. The underlying factor structure corresponded to our proposed conceptual distinction between static and dynamic clusters of tests. Conclusions: Static and dynamic tests compose different clusters and double dissociations are shown between clusters. Future research involving data-driven approaches might result in a better understanding on how different tests of VSN relate to each other, and, more importantly, a better understanding of VSN and its phenotypes.

show abstract

Do Neglect Assessments Detect Neglect Differently?

Cited by 16 publications

References 35 publications

Examining Anosognosia of Neglect

Examining Anosognosia of Neglect

Virtual reality for the assessment and rehabilitation of neglect: where are we now? A 6-year review update

Increasing cognitive demand in assessments of visuo-spatial neglect: Testing the concepts of static and dynamic tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About