Monocular patching affects inattention but not perseveration in spatial neglect

Khurshid, Shaan; Longin, Harold E.; Crucian, Gregory P.; Barrett, Anna M.

doi:10.1080/13554790902776888

Cited by 16 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other strengths of this dataset are a relatively large number of patients, with both diffusion and perfusion scans, dysfunctional tissue analysis, and assessment of both perseveration and neglect. Many recent studies have been performed in the chronic phase [4,16,19,20,23,24] or subacute phase [6,14,17] after some patients may have recovered from perseverative behavior, making it difficult to ascertain whether or not the patients' lesions were critical for the early appearance of perseveration. When studying in the acute or early subacute phase, both diffusion and perfusion must be used to account for all dysfunctional tissue that might account for the abnormal behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although perseverations are not affected by the number of contralesional stimuli in all patients [6,18,20,21]. Ipsilesional monocular patching has been shown to decrease the number of neglected stimuli, but has no effect on the number of perseverations [23]. Prism adaptation surprisingly has been shown to decrease severity of neglect, increase the severity of perseveration, and shift perseverations contralesionally in one patient [24], although perseveration is not increased uniformly in all patients while using prism glasses [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disentangling the Neuroanatomical Correlates of Perseveration from Unilateral Spatial Neglect

Kleinman

DuBois

Newhart

et al. 2013

Behavioural Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Perseverative behavior, manifest as re-cancelling or re-visiting targets, is distinct from spatial neglect. Perseveration is thought to reflect frontal or parietal lobe dysfunction, but the neuroanatomical correlates remain poorly defined and the interplay between neglect and perseveration is incompletely understood. We enrolled 87 consecutive patients with diffusion-weighted, perfusion-weighted imaging, and spatial neglect testing within 24 hours of right hemisphere ischemic stroke. The degrees of spatial neglect and perseveration were analyzed. Perseveration was apparent in 46% (40/87) of the patients; 28% (24/87) showed perseveration only; 18% (16/87) showed both perseveration and neglect; and 3% (3/87) showed neglect only. Perseverative behaviors occur in an inverted "U" shape: little neglect was associated with few perseverations; moderate neglect with high perseverations; and in severe neglect targets may not enter consciousness and perseverative responses decrease. Brodmann areas of dysfunction, and the caudate and putament, were assessed and volumetrically measured. In this study, the caudate and putamen were not associated with perseveration. After controlling for neglect, and volume of dysfunctional tissue, only Brodmann area 46 was associated with perseveration. Our results further support the notion that perseveration and neglect are distinct entities; while they often co-occur, acute dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ischemia is associated with perseveration specifically.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling the Neuroanatomical Correlates of Perseveration from Unilateral Spatial Neglect

Kleinman

DuBois

Newhart

et al. 2013

Behavioural Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seven studies investigated the effects of right monocular EP (five also analyzed the effects of left monocular EP) (Butter and Kirsch, 1992; Soroker et al, 1994; Serfaty et al, 1995; Walker et al, 1996; Barrett et al, 2001; Khurshid et al, 2009; Wu et al, 2013) and five assessed the effects of right hemifield EP (Arai et al, 1997; Zeloni et al, 2002; Fong et al, 2007; Tsang et al, 2009; Ianes et al, 2012). Only one study investigated the effect of right monocular EP and that of right hemifield EP (Beis et al, 1999).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies compared patient performance on neglect testing under two experimental conditions: normal viewing and viewing during EP (Butter and Kirsch, 1992; Soroker et al, 1994; Serfaty et al, 1995; Walker et al, 1996; Arai et al, 1997; Barrett et al, 2001; Khurshid et al, 2009). Six compared the effects of a rehabilitation technique with the same kind of treatment combined with EP (Beis et al, 1999; Zeloni et al, 2002; Fong et al, 2007; Tsang et al, 2009; Wu et al, 2013) or EP treatment applied alone (Ianes et al, 2012).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Eye Patching in Rehabilitation of Hemispatial Neglect

Smania¹,

Fonte²,

Picelli³

et al. 2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eye patching (EP; monocular or right hemifield) has been proposed to improve visuospatial attention to the ignored field in patients with hemispatial neglect. The aim of this paper is to review the literature on the effects of EP in hemispatial neglect after stroke in order to convey evidence-based recommendations to clinicians in stroke rehabilitation. Thirteen intervention studies were selected from the Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EBRSR, and Health Star databases. Methodological quality was defined according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Overall, seven studies used monocular EP, five used right hemifield patching, and one compared right monocular with right hemifield patching. Seven studies compared normal viewing to monocular or hemifield patching conditions. Six studies included a period of treatment. As to the monocular EP, four studies reported positive effects of right monocular patching. One study showed an improvement in hemispatial neglect with left monocular patching. Two studies found no superiority of right vs. left monocular patching. One study found no effects of right monocular patching. As to the right hemifield EP, one study showed improvements in neglect after right hemifield patching. Three studies found that right hemifield patching combined with another rehabilitation technique was more effective than that treatment alone. One study found no differences between right hemifield patching combined with another treatment and that treatment alone. One study found the same effect between right hemifield patching alone and another rehabilitation technique. Our results globally tend to support the usefulness of right hemifield EP in clinical practice. In order to define a level of evidence with the standard rehabilitation evidence rating tools, further properly powered randomized controlled trials or meta-analysis are needed.

show abstract

“…Butter et al (1989) demonstrated that patching the eye ipsilateral to the right hemisphere lesion in human patients reduced their neglect in a line bisection task. The study of Khurshid, Longin, Crucian, and Barrett (2009) suggested that ipsilesional patching (right monocular eye patching) reduced left-sided omissions. The researchers (Butter & Kirsch, 1992) also found in the line bisection test that the eye-patch intervention was effective for 11 of 13 patients but that its effective period was limited.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Right half-field eye patching may not be an effective approach for chronic hemispatial neglect – a two-case investigation

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Right half-field eye-patched glasses intervention was performed in two chronic stroke patients with unilateral spatial neglect. Eye movement on the neglect side, the center of gravity as an index of the internal midline bias, neglect sign tests, and the regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) were measured before and after intervention. The improvement of eye movement was not shown clearly after intervention. The center of gravity shifted significantly to the right and backward. Letter and star cancellation tests were improved in both the cases. Line bisection test showed improvement in one patient. However, line cancellation and line bisection tests were worsened in the other. The rCBF was not changed after intervention. This case study suggests that right half-field eye patching might not be an effective intervention.

show abstract

Monocular patching affects inattention but not perseveration in spatial neglect

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Disentangling the Neuroanatomical Correlates of Perseveration from Unilateral Spatial Neglect

Disentangling the Neuroanatomical Correlates of Perseveration from Unilateral Spatial Neglect

Effect of Eye Patching in Rehabilitation of Hemispatial Neglect

Right half-field eye patching may not be an effective approach for chronic hemispatial neglect – a two-case investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About