Unilateral Spatial Neglect - Authors

NOTE: When reviewing the findings of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), repeated measures studies, crossover studies, cohort studies and quasi-experimental studies in the results table, it is important to note that a ‘+’ is indicated only if there was a significant post treatment difference between the treatment group and the control group. For pre-post study designs, a ‘+’ indicates a significant difference from pre to post intervention assessment.

 Unilateral Spatial Neglect Results Table

Antonucci et al., 1995.

PEDro score:  4/10

 

 

20 patients with subacute stroke

Immediate specific neglect training (n=10)

 Vs.

 Delayed specific neglect training (n=10)

 Treatment details:
Specific neglect training: 1 hour, 5 days/week for 8 weeks; tasks included visual scanning, reading and copying, copying line drawings on a dot matrix, and black and white figure description.

 Delayed training: 1 hour, 3 days/week for 8 weeks; tasks included unspecific cognitive stimulation such as puzzles, chess, cards and crosswords.

At 8 weeks (post-treatment 1):
(+) Letter Cancellation Test
(+) Albert’s Barrage Test
(+) Sentence Reading Test
(+) Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test
(+) Semi-Structured Scale for the Functional Evaluation of Hemi-Inattention in Extrapersonal Space.

 Note: results indicate significant improvements in the immediate training group only.

 At 16 weeks (post-treatment 2):
(+) Letter Cancellation Test
(+) Albert’s Barrage Test
(+) Sentence Reading Test
(+) Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test
(+) Semi-Structured Scale for the Functional Evaluation of Hemi-Inattention in Extrapersonal Space.

 Note: results indicate significant improvements in the delayed training group. 

Bailey et al., 2002.

PEDro Score: N/A (non-randomized single-subject experimental design study)

 A withdrawal phase was included to measure retention of changes approximately 3 weeks later (follow-up).

 

7 patients with subacute stroke and USN

Scanning and cueing training (n=5)

 Or

 Contralesional limb activation training

(NB. interventions were not compared)

 Treatment details:

10x 1-hour sessions over approximately 3 weeks; all participants also received usual physical and occupational therapy.

At 3 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) BIT Star Cancellation Test
(+) BIT Line Bisection Test
(+) Baking Tray Task
(-) Nottingham Sensory Assessment scale – position sense affected upper limb
(-) Nottingham Sensory Assessment scale – position sense affected lower limb
(-) Nottingham Sensory Assessment scale – light touch affected upper limb
(-) Nottingham Sensory Assessment scale – light touch affected lower limb
(-) Rivermead Mobility Index
(-) Barthel Index
(-) Canadian Neurological Scale

 At 6 weeks (follow-up):
(+) BIT Star Cancellation Test
(+) BIT Line Bisection Test
(+) Baking Tray Task
(-) Nottingham Sensory Assessment scale – position sense affected upper limb
(-) Nottingham Sensory Assessment scale – position sense affected lower limb
(-) Nottingham Sensory Assessment scale – light touch affected upper limb
(-) Nottingham Sensory Assessment scale – light touch affected lower limb
(-) Rivermead Mobility Index
(-) Barthel Index
(-) Canadian Neurological Scale

Note: Improved USN test results were significant for 3 of 5 participants from the scanning and cueing training group and for both participants from the contralesional limb activation training group.

Beis et al., 1999.

PEDro score: 2/10

 

 

22 patients with subacute stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Right half-field patching (n=7)

Vs.

Right mononuclar patching (n=7)

 Vs.

 No patching (n=8)

 Treatment details:
Participants in the patching groups wore glasses during the day (average 12 hours) for 3 months from the point of admission. All participants received the same rehabilitation program.

At 3 months (post-treatment):
(+) FIM*
(-) Time looking at letters (R field)
(-) Time looking at letters (L field)
(-) Number of times looking at the reference zone (R field)
(+) Number of times looking at the reference zone (L field)*

* Significant between-group difference in favour of right half-field patching compared to no patching only.

 

Cazzoli et al., 2012.

PEDro score: 8/10

 

 

 

 

24 patients with subacute stroke and left spatial neglect

Continuous theta burst stimulation followed by sham stimulation (TBS1)

 Vs.

 Sham stimulation followed by continuous theta burst stimulation (TBS2)

 Vs. 

 No stimulation (control).

 

Treatment details:

Stimulation comprised eight trains of continuous theta burst repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation applied to the left posterior parietal cortex over two consecutive days.

At week 1 (post-stimulation, TBS1 only):
(+) Catherine Bergego Scale (+) Vienna test system – omissions
(-) Vienna test system – reaction time
(+) Random shape cancellation test
(+) Two-part picture test
(-) Munich reading texts

At week 2 (post-stimulation, TBS2 only):
(+) Catherine Bergego Scale (+) Vienna test system – omissions
(-) Vienna test system – reaction time
(+) Random shape cancellation test
(+) Two-part picture test
(-) Munich reading texts

At week 3 (follow-up, TBS1 and TBS2):(+) Catherine Bergego Scale
(+) Vienna test system – omissions
(-) Vienna test system – reaction time
(+) Random shape cancellation test*
(+) Two-part picture test*
(-) Munich reading texts
* CBS2 only

Fanthome et al., 1995.

PEDro Score: 6/10

 

 

 

18 patients with subacute stroke and left USN

Auditory feedback of eye movements (n = 9)

 Vs.

 No treatment for visual inattention (control, n=9).

 Treatment details:
2h 40 min/week for 4 weeks.

At 4 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Eye movements
(-) Behavioural Inattention Test

At 8 weeks (follow-up):
(-) Eye movements
(-) Behavioural Inattention Test

 

Ferreira et al., 2011.

PEDro Score: 5/10

 

 

 

 

 

15 patients with subacute to chronic stroke and left hemispatial neglect

Visual scanning (n=5)

 Vs.

 Mental practice (n=5)

Vs.

 Physiotherapy (n=5).

 Treatment details:
Visual scanning and mental practice were provided during ten 1-hour sessions over 5 weeks.

At 5 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) BIT conventional score*
(+) FIM self care score*

At 3 months follow-up:
(+) BIT conventional score*
(+) FIM self care score*

* in favour of visual scanning compared to the control group.

 

Fong et al., 2013.

PEDro Score: 8/10

 

 

 

 

40 patients with acute or subacute stroke and left USN

Contralesional sensory cueing and limb activation (n=20)

 Vs.

 Sham cueing (n=20)

 Treatment details:

Participants wore the wrist device on the hemiplegic arm for 3 hours/day, 5 days/week for 3 weeks.

Participants in the intervention group were instructed to perform 5 consecutive movements after each cue; participants in the control group were instructed to move their arm as much as possible.

At 3 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT) cancellation tasks
(+) BIT drawing tasks*
(-) Fugl-Meyer Assessment upper extremity motor subscore (FMA-UE)
(-) Functional Test for the Hemiplegic Upper Extremity (FTHUE)
(-) Functional Independence Measure (FIM)
(-) Total number of arm movements

At 6 weeks (follow-up):
(-) BIT cancellation tasks
(+) BIT drawing tasks*
(-) FMA-UE
(-) FTHUE
(-) FIM
(-) Total number of arm movements

* results reflect significant between-group difference in BIT drawing tasks over both testing periods. 

Frassinetti et al., 2002.

PEDro score:  N/A

 

 

 

7 patients with subacute or chronic stroke and left USN

Prism adaptation training

 Treatment details:
Two 20-minute sessions/weekday for 2 weeks.

At 2 weeks + 2 days (post-treatment):
(+) Behavioral Inattention Test (BIT)
(+) Bell’s Test
(+) Reading Test
(-) modified Fluff Test
(+) Objects Reaching Test
(+) Room Description Test
(-) Motricity Index

At 2 weeks + 1 week (follow-up 1):
(+) BIT
(+) Bell’s Test
(+) Reading Test
(-) modified Fluff Test
(+) Objects Reaching Test
(+) Room Description Test
(-) Motricity Index

At 2 weeks + 5 weeks (follow-up 2):
(+) BIT
(+) Bell’s Test
(+) Reading Test
(-) modified Fluff Test
(+) Objects Reaching Test
(+) Room Description Test
(-) Motricity Index

Harvey et al., 2003.

PEDro score: 4/10

 

 

14 patients with subacute or chronic stroke and USN

Centre-lifting group (n=7)

 Vs.

 Right-lifting group (n=7)

 Treatment details:
1hr/day over 3 consecutive days under the examiner’s instruction, then self-led exercises at home for 10 days over a 2-week period.

 

At 3 days:
(-) Line Bisection Test
(-) Landmark Test
(-) Real objects test

At 10 days (post-treatment):
(-) Line Bisection Test
(+) Landmark Test
(-) Real objects test
(-) Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT)
(-) Balloons test
(-) Test of Everyday Attention (TEA)
(-) Barthel Index (BI)
(-) standardised rating scale of neglect behaviour

At 1 month (follow-up):
(-) Line Bisection Test
(-) Landmark Test
(-) Real objects test
(-) BIT
(-) Balloons test
(-) TEA
(-) BI
(-) standardised rating scale of neglect behaviour

Ianes et al., 2012

PEDro score: 7/10

18 patients with acute stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Right half-field patching (n=10)

vs.

 Visual scanning (n=8)

 Treatment details:
The intervention group received right half-field patching for 8 hours/day for 15 consecutive days with no additional exercises.

 The control group performed visual scanning training for 40 minutes/weekday over 15 days.

At 15 days (post-treatment):
(-) Line Crossing Test
(-) Line Bisection Test
(-) Bells Test

At 1 week following treatment (follow-up):
(+) Line Crossing Test
(-) Line Bisection Test
(-) Bells Test

Jo et al., 2012

PEDro score: 4/10

 

29 patients with stroke (time since stroke not specified) and neglect

Virtual reality (VR) and conventional rehabilitation (n=15)

 Vs.

 Conventional rehabilitation alone (n=14).

 Treatment details:
VR: 60 minutes/session, 5 times/week for 4 weeks.

Conventional rehabilitation: 30 minutes/session, 3 times/week for 4 weeks.

At 4 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) total
(-) WMFT time
(+) WMFT arm
(+) WMFT hand
(+) Motor-Free Visual Perception Test (MVPT) total
(+) MVPT time
(+) MVPT visual discrimination
(+) MVPT figure ground
(-) MVPT visual memory
(-) MVPT visual closure
(-) MVPT spatial relations
Note: results indicate significant within-group improvement from baseline to post-treatment; between-group differences were not reported.

Kalra et al., 1997.

PEDro Score: 6/10

 

 

 

50 patients with acute stroke and visual neglect

Spatiomotor cueing based on the ‘attentional motor integration’ model (n=25)

 Vs.

 Conventional rehabilitation (n=25)

 Treatment details:
Not specified

At 12 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) Rivermead Perceptual Assessment Battery*
(-) Barthel Index
(+) Length of stay
(+) Amount of physiotherapy intervention
* Body image and Cancellation subtests only

Kamada et al., 2011

PEDro score: N/A  (multiple-baselines study)

11 patients with subacute stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Neck-muscle vibration and occupational therapy (OT).

 Treatment details:
All patients received treatment using an A1-B-A2 design, where A1 and A2 comprised conventional OT and B comprised neck-muscle vibration.

 Vibration treatment consisted of 5 minutes of vibration to the left posterior neck muscle

 Conventional OT consisted of ADLs, vocational, perceptual and functional activities for 40 minutes daily, 5 days a week.

 Each treatment block was 2 weeks duration.

At end of sessions A1 (2 weeks):
(-) Behavioral Inattention Test (BIT) Conventional test,
(-) BIT Behavioral test
(-) BIT Severity of USN
(+) Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Self Care*
(+) FIM Sphincter*
(-) FIM Transfer
(+) FIM Locomotion*
(-) FIM Cognition
(+) FIM Total*

At end of session B (4 weeks):
(+) BIT Conventional test*^
(+) BIT Behavioral test*^
(+) BIT Severity of USN*^
(+) FIM Self Care*^
(+) FIM Sphincter^
(+) FIM Transfer^
(+) FIM Locomotion^
(-) FIM Cognition
(+) FIM Total*^

At end of session A2 (6 weeks):
(+) BIT Conventional test^
(-) BIT Behavioral test*^
(+) BIT Severity of USN^
(+) FIM Self Care^
(-) FIM Sphincter
(+) FIM Transfer^
(+) FIM Locomotion^
(-) FIM Cognition
(+) FIM Total^
Note: * indicates significant improvements post-treatment (but not compared to baseline).

^ indicates significant improvements compared to baseline scores

Katz et al., 2005

PEDro score:  N/A (quasi-experimental study)

19 patients with subacute stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Computer desktop-based virtual reality (VR) street crossing training (n=11)

 vs.

 Computer based visual scanning task (n=8).

 Treatment details: 45-minute sessions 3 times/week for 4 weeks.

 

At 4 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Star Cancellation Test
(-) Mesulam Symbol Cancellation Test
(-) ADL Checklist*
(-) VR street crossing – number of left looks
(+) VR street crossing – number of accidents
(-) Real street crossing -number of left looks
(-) Rest street crossing – decision time 

* Significant between-group difference in favour of the control group compared to the VR group.

Kerkhoff et al., 2012.

PEDro score:  6/10

 

 

 

 

6 patients with subacute stroke and left visual neglect and left auditory neglect

Optokinetic stimulation (n=3)

 Vs.

 Conventional visual scanning training (n=3)

 Treatment details:
50 minutes/session, 1 session/weekday for 4 weeks

At 4 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) Horizontal line bisection task
(+) Number cancellation task
(+) Reading task

At 2 months (follow-up):
(-) Horizontal line bisection task
(-) Number cancellation task
(-) Reading task

Kim et al., 2013.

PEDro score:  7/10

 

 

 

27 patients with acute stroke and visuospatial neglect

Low frequency (1Hz) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the non-affected posterior parietal cortex (PPC)

 Vs.

 High frequency (10Hz) rTMS to the affected PPC

 Vs.

 Sham stimulation

 Treatment details:
10 sessions over 2 weeks.

At 2 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Motor-Free Visual Perception Test
(+) Line bisection test*
(-) Star cancellation test
(-) Catherine Bergego Scale
(+) Korean Modified Barthel Index**

* high-frequency rTMS vs sham stimulation

** high frequency rTMS vs sham stimulation and low frequency rTMS vs sham stimulation. 

Kim et al., 2011.

PEDro score: 3/10

 

24 patients with acute stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect (USN)

 

Virtual reality (VR) USN training (n=12)

 vs.

 Conventional USN rehabilitation.

 Treatment details:
30 minutes/day, 5 days/week for 3 weeks.

 VR USN training comprised three programs (“Bird and Ball”, “Coconut”, and “Container”) that involved left non-paretic upper-extremity movements of reaching, catching and moving objects were performed. 

At 3 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) Star Cancellation Test*
(-) Line Bisection Test
(+) Catherine Bergego Scale*
(-) Korean version of modified Barthel Index

*Results reflect a significant difference in change scores from baseline to post-treatment.

Koch et al., 2012.

PEDro score: 9/10

20 patients with subacute stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) (n=10)

 vs.

 Sham cTBS (n=10) 

Treatment details:
All patients received their respective cTBS treatment to the unaffected posterior parietal cortex during 45-minute sessions each weekday for 2 weeks.

 Real cTBS consisted of 3-pulse burst at 50 Hz repeated every 200m/sec for 40 seconds.

 All participants also received conventional rehabilitation based on computerized visuospatial scanning training, and motor rehabilitation. 

At 2 weeks (post-treatment) and 4 weeks (follow-up):
(+) Behavioral Inattention Test (BIT) – total score
(+) Functional connectivity in the intact posterior parietal cortex and primary motor cortex

Ladavas et al., 1994.

PEDro score: N/A

 

 

12 patients with chronic stroke and left USN

Covert computerized scanning and attention training (n=4)

 Vs.

 Overt computerized scanning and attention training (n=4)

 Vs. Control group (n=4)

 Treatment details:
Computerized visual scanning and attention training was provided for

1 hour/day, 5 days/week for 6 weeks.

The control group received standard motor rehabilitation only.

At 6 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) Letter cancellation test
(+) Line cancellation test
(+) Bells test
(+) Object pointing task
(+) Non-standardized measure of visual extinction and neglect
(-)  Non-standardized measure of tactile extinction and neglect

Note: results indicate significant improvements following covert and overt training.

Luukkainen-Markkula et al., 2009.

PEDro score: 7/10

 

 

 

 

 

12 patients with acute or subacute stroke and left hemispatial neglect

Left arm activation therapy (n=6)

 Vs.

 Visual scanning training (n=6)

 Treatment details:
Arm activation therapy was provided for 20-30 hours over 3 weeks; visual scanning training was provided for 10 hours over 3 weeks.

 

 

At 3 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) BIT conventional subtests*
(-) Catherine Bergego Scale
(+) FIM
(-) Modified Rankin Scale
(+) Modified Motor Assessment Scale^
(-) Wolf Motor Function Test
(-) Rey Osterrieth test
(-) Wechsler Adult intelligence Scale – Revised

At 6 months later (follow-up):
(+) BIT conventional subtests
(-) Catherine Bergego Scale
(+) Modified Rankin Scale^
(+) Modified Motor Assessment Scale^
(-) Wolf Motor Function Test
(+) Rey Osterrieth test^
(-) Wechsler Adult intelligence Scale – Revised

Note: Between-group differences were not reported.

* arm activation group only

^ visual scanning group only

Mancuso et al., 2012.

PEDro score: 5/10

22 patients with subacute or chronic stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Pointing exercises with prismatic lenses of 5° to the right (n=13)

 vs.

 Pointing exercises with neutral/control lenses (n=9).

 Treatment details:
5x 30-minute daily rehabilitation sessions that consisted of pointing tasks and prismatic lenses. The control group performed the same training with neutral plastic glasses.

At 1 week (post-treatment):
(-) Albert Test
(-) Bells Cancellation Test
(-) Line Orientation Test
(-) Behavioral Inattention Test (line bisection, copying drawings, finding objects, and dealing playing cards subtests)

 

Mizuno et al., 2011.

PEDro score: 7/10

38 patients with subacute stroke and unilateral spatial neglect (USN)

 Note: Patients were also grouped according to mild USN (n=23) and severe USN (n=11).

 

Prism Adaptation (PA group) (n=18)

 vs.

 Neutral glasses (control group) (n=20)

 Treatment details:
20 minute training sessions twice daily, 5 days/week for 2 weeks (total of 20 sessions). The treatment consisted of performing repetitive pointing exercises: 30 without prisms, followed by 90 with prisms (12 degree of lateral deviation); and 60 without prisms.

At 4 weeks (2 weeks post-treatment):
(-) Behavioural Inattention Test – Behavioural (BIT-B)
(-) Behavioral Inattention Test – Conventional (BIT-C)
(-) Catherine Bergego Scale (CBS)
(-) Functional Independence Measure (FIM)

At discharge from hospital (follow-up):
(-) BIT-B
(-) BIT-C
(-) CBS
(+) FIM*

* significant between-group difference seen in patients with mild USN only.

Change from baseline to discharge:
(-) BIT-B
(+) BIT-C*
(-) CBS
(+) FIM*

* significant between-group difference seen in patients with mild USN only.

Change from post-treatment to discharge:
(-) BIT-B
(-) BIT-C
(-) CBS
(+) FIM**

** significant between-group difference seen in whole-group comparison and in sub-group of patients with mild USN.

Modden et al., 2012.

PEDro score: 5/10

 

 

 

45 patients with subacute stroke and homonomous hemianopia

Compensatory Therapy (CT, n=15)

 Vs.

 Restorative Computerized Training (RT, n=15)

 Vs.

 Conventional occupational therapy (OT, n=15).

 Treatment details:
30 minutes/weekday for 3 weeks,

in addition to standard inpatient rehabilitation.

At 3 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Test of Attentional Performance (TAP) visual field assessment
(-) TAP alertness
(-) TAP visual scanning
(-) BIT cancellation tests
(-) Weschler Memory Test reading task
(-) German Extended Barthel Index

 

Niemeier et al., 2001.

PEDro score: N/A (pre-post repeated measures study)

 

 

19 patients with acute stroke and unilateral neglect

Visual imagery training (n=10)

 Vs.

 Regular daily rehabilitation (n=9)

 Treatment details:
3x 30-minute sessions of visual imagery training in addition to regular daily rehabilitation over a three-week period.

At discharge:
(+) FIM*
(-) Mesulam Verbal Cancellation Test
(-) Rancho Los Amigos Cognitive and Behavioural Scale**
(+) Route finding task

*significant difference in improvement from admission to discharge, on the FIM walking/wheelchair task and FIM problem-solving task.

** used on a small non-descript subgroup of patients from the intervention and control groups only.

Nijboer et al., 2014.

PEDro score: N/A (non-randomized study)

 

 

 

 

10 patients with subacute stroke and left visual neglect

Prism adaptation training

 Treatment details:
1 session wearing goggles with wide-field point-to-point prismatic lenses that induced a ten-degree right optical shift while performing repetitive pointing exercises

After 1 session (post-treatment):
(+) Balance (mediolateral CoP) – eyes open
(-) Balance (mediolateral CoP) – eyes closed
(+) Balance (anteroposterior CoP) – eyes open
(-) Balance (anteroposterior CoP) – eyes closed
(+) Postural sway (horizontal) – eyes open
(+) Postural sway (horizontal) – eyes closed
(-) Postural sway (vertical) – eyes open
(-) Postural sway (vertical) – eyes closed

Nys et al., 2008.

PEDro score:  5/10

 

 

16 patients with acute stroke and unilateral neglect (USN)

Prism goggles with 10° rightward deviation (n=10)

 Vs.

 Prism goggles with 0° deviation (n=6).

 Treatment details:
30 minutes/day for 4 consecutive days while making 100 fast pointing movements to two visual targets.

At 4 days (post-treatment):
(+) Schenkenberg Line Bisection Test
(+) Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT) letter cancellation task
(+) Scene Copying Task

At 1 month (follow-up):
(-) BIT star cancellation
(-) BIT figure copying
(-) BIT representational drawing
(-) BIT line bisection

Osawa & Maeshima, 2010

PEDro score: N/A (quasi-experimental design)

34 patients with acute stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Conventional rehabilitation with family participation (n=20)

vs.

 Conventional rehabilitation without family participation (n=14) groups.

 Treatment details:
All patients received conventional physical and occupational therapy for 1 hour a day, 5 days a week, for 3 weeks.

 Patients in the family participation group received 2-3 additional exercise sessions with family members. 

At 3 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) Behavioral Inattention Test
(-) Laterality Index
(-) Mini-Mental State Examination
(-) Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices
(-) Word fluency test
(+) Rivermead Mobility Index
(+) Barthel Index

Pandian et al., 2014

PEDro score:

8/10

48 patients with acute stroke and unilateral spatial neglect

 

Mirror therapy using the affected and nonaffected upper extremity movements

 vs.

 Control treatment using a nonreflective mirror

 Treatment details:
20 1-2 hours treatment sessions over 4 weeks while performing arm, hand, and digit movements.

At 1 (post-treatment), 3 (follow-up), and 6 (follow-up) months
(+) Star Cancellation Test
(+) Line Bisection Test
(+) Picture Identification Test
(-) Functional Independence Measure

Paolucci et al., 1996.

PEDro score: 3/10

Country: Italy

 

23 patients with subacute stroke and left USN

Immediate specific neglect training (n=12)

 Vs.

 Delayed specific neglect training (n=11)

 Treatment details:
Specific neglect training was provided during 1-hour sessions 5 times/week for 8 weeks.

Participants in the delayed training group received general cognitive training during 1-hour sessions 3 times/week for 8 weeks.

Both groups also received conventional rehabilitation.

At 8 weeks (post-treatment 1):
(+) Letter Cancellation Test
(-) Barrage Test
(+) Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test
(+) Sentence Reading Test
(+) Barthel Index (BI)
(+) Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI)
(-) Canadian Neurological Scale

At 16 weeks (post-treatment 2):
(-) Letter Cancellation Test
(-) Barrage Test
(-) Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test
(-) Sentence Reading Test
(-) BI
(-) RMI
(-) Canadian Neurological Scale

 

Pizzamiglio et al., 2004.

PEDro score: 2/10

 

 

 

22 patients with subacute or chronic stroke

Specific USN training and optokinetic stimulation (n=11)

 Vs.

 Specific USN training alone (n=11).

 Treatment details:
1 hour/day, 5 days/week for 6 weeks

 

At 6 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Albert’s Test
(-) Letter Cancellation Test
(-) Reading task
(-) Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test
(-) BIT Line Bisection Test
(-) Semi-structured Scale for the Functional Evaluation of Personal Neglect
(-) Semi-structured Scale for the Functional Evaluation of Extrapersonal Neglect
(-) Barthel Index

Polanowska et al., 2009.

PEDro score: 7/10

 

 

 

 

 

 

40 patients with acute to subacute stroke and left visual hemineglect

Visual scanning training with somatosensory electrical stimulation (n=20)

 Vs.

 Visual scanning training with sham stimulation (n=20)

 Treatment details:
Visual scanning training was provided during 45-minute sessions 5 days/week for 4 weeks. Stimulation comprised 30 minutes of transcutaneous electrical stimulation to the left hand.

At 4 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) scanning accuracy*
(+) scanning range*
(-) Barthel Index

* measured using the BIT line crossing and star cancellation tests and a letter reading task

Robertson et al., 1990.

PEDro score: 6/10

 

 

 

 

36 patients with acquired head injury (n=33 subacute/chronic stroke) and unilateral left visual field neglect

Computerized scanning and attentional training (n=20)

 Vs.

 Recreational computing (n=16)

 Treatment details:
The computerized scanning and attentional training group received an average of 15.5 hours of training; the control group received an average of 11.4 hours of computer use.

At 9 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT)
(-) Rey-Osterreith Test complex figure copy
(-) Neale Reading Test accuracy score
(-) Letter cancellation test
(+) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R) picture completion
(-) WAIS-R block design
(-) Observer’s report of neglect

At 6 months post-treatment (follow-up):
(-) BIT
(-) Rey-Osterreith Test complex figure copy
(-) Neale Reading Test accuracy score
(-) Letter cancellation test
(-) WAIS-R picture completion
(-) WAIS-R block design
(-) Observer’s report of neglect 

Robertson et al., 2002.

PEDro score: 6/10

 

 

40 patients with subacute to chronic stroke and left unilateral visual neglect

Perceptual training and  limb activation treatment (n=19)

 Vs.

 Perceptual training alone (n=21).

 Treatment details:
Both groups received 12 45-minute sessions over 12 weeks.

At 12 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT)
(-) Comb and Razor Test
(-) Landmark Test
(-) Barthel Index
(-) Motricity Index

At 3 months, 6 months and 18-24 months (follow-up)
(-) Behavioural Inattention Test
(-) Comb and Razor Test
(-) Landmark Test
(-) Barthel Index
(-) Motricity Index 

Rorsman & Johansson, 2006.

PEDro score: 8/10

 

 

 

54 patients with acute stroke

Acupuncture combined with electro-acupuncture (n=18)

 Vs.

 High-intensity, low-frequency TENS (n=19)

 Vs.

 Low-intensity, high-frequency subliminal TENS (n=17)

 Treatment details:
30 minutes/day, 2 times/week for 10 weeks

At 3 months post-stroke:
(-) Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE)
(-) Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test
(-) Facial Recognition Memory test
(-) Time Perception test
(-) Star Cancellation Test
(-) Frenchay Aphasia Screening test
(-) Token Test
(-) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)
(-) Comprehensive Psychiatric Rating Scale (CPRS)
(-) medication use

At 12 months post-stroke:
(-) MMSE
(-) Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test
(-) Facial Recognition Memory test
(-) Time Perception test
(-) Star Cancellation Test
(-) Frenchay Aphasia Screening test
(-) Token Test
(-) HADS
(-) CPRS
(-) medication use

Rossetti et al., 1998.

PEDro score: 4/10

 

 

 

12 patients with acute to chronic stroke and left hemispatial neglect

Prism adaptation training (n not specified)

 Vs.

 Neutral goggles (n not specified)

 Treatment details:
Both groups wore their respective goggles for 5 minutes while performing a repetitive reaching-to-target task. Prism adaptation training used wedge prisms with 10-degree optical deviation to the right.

Immediately following 5-minute training (post-treatment):
(+) Line bisection task
(+) Line cancellation task
(+) Copying a drawing
(+) Drawing from memory
(+) Reading simple text

2 hours post-treatment (follow-up):
(+) Line bisection task
(+) Line cancellation task
(+) Copying a drawing
(+) Drawing from memory
(+) Reading simple text

Rossi et al., 1990.

PEDro score: 4/10

 

 

 

39 patients with subacute stroke and homonymous hemianopia or unilateral visual neglect

Fresnel prisms (n = 18)

 Vs.

 No additional treatment (control, n = 21).

 Treatment details:
Fresnel prisms were 15-diopter plastic press-on prisms that were worn during all daytime activities.

At 4 weeks:
(+) Motor Free Visual Perception Test
(+) Line Bisection Task
(+) Line Cancellation Task
(+) Harrington Flocks Visual Field Screener
(+) Tangent Screen Examination
(-) Barthel Index mobility score

Schroder et al., 2008.

PEDro score:  4/10

 

 

 

 

30 patients with acute to subacute stroke and left neglect

TENS + standard exploration (scanning) training

 Vs.

 Optokinetic stimulation (OKS) + exploration training

 Vs.

 Exploration training alone.

 Treatment details:
20 sessions of the respective training for 25-40 minutes (according to patient tolerance) over 4 weeks.

 

After 10 sessions (mid-treatment):
(+) Neglect*
(+) Reading/writing

After 20 sessions (post-treatment):
(+) Neglect
(+) Reading/writing

1 week after treatment (follow-up):
(+) Neglect*
(+) Reading/writing

* OKS compared to control only

There were no significant differences between TENS and OKS at any time point.

See publication abstract for information regarding assessments.

Sedda et al., 2013

PEDro score: N/A (pre-post single subject study)

1 patient with chronic stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Visual searching task performed in virtual reality

 

Treatment details:
1-hour session/day for 4 weeks

Treatment comprised grasping exercises using a Sony PS3 “EyeToy” camera

At 4 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) Attentional Matrices
(+) Mini-Mental State Examination
(+) Line Bisection Test
(+) Albert Cancellation Test

At 5 months (follow-up):
(-) Attentional Matrices
(-) Mini-Mental State Examination
(-) Line Bisection Test
(-) Albert Cancellation Test

Note: statistical data was not provided 

Serino, et al., 2009.

PEDro score: 6/10

 

 

20 patients with acute to chronic stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Prismatic goggles deviating visual field 10° rightwards (n=10)

 Vs.

 Neutral goggles (n=10)

 Treatment details:
30 minutes/day, 5 consecutive sessions/week for 2 weeks

At 2 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT)*
(+) Bell Cancellation Test
(+) Reading test

At 1 month post-treatment (follow-up):
(-) BIT
(-) Bell Cancellation Test
(-) Reading test

* BIT star cancellation and letter cancellation subtests

Turton et al., 2010

PEDro score: 7/10

36 patients with subacute stroke and unilateral spatial neglect

Prism adaptation training (n=17)

 vs.

 Sham treatment using plain glasses (n=19).

 Treatment details:
Both groups received 10 sessions each weekday for 2 weeks that consisted of 90 pointing exercises to central, right, and left sided targets.

 Prism adaptation training used diopter prismatic lenses of 6° right shift.

At 2 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Catherine Bergego Scale
(-) Behavioral Inattention Test

At 8 weeks (follow-up):
(-) Catherine Bergego Scale
(-) Behavioral Inattention Test

Prior each treatment session
(+) Pointing errors with blocked vision at the terminal part of each pointing movement*

Note: * During week 1 only

van Kessel et al., 2013

PEDro score: N/A (quasi-experimental study)

29 patients with subacute or chronic stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Virtual reality dual task training in addition to visual scanning (n=14)

 vs.

 Virtual reality single task training (n=15)

 Treatment details:
The control group received standardized visual scanning training and a driving simulator task. The experimental group also received a computerized dual task. Both groups received treatment 1 hour/day, 5 days/week for 6 weeks. 

At 6 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Line Cancellation Test
(-) Letter Cancellation Test
(-) Bells Test
(-) Line Bisection Test
(-) Word Reading task
(-) Grey Scales
(-) Baking Tray Task
(-) Semi-Structured Scale for the Evaluation of Extrapersonal Neglect
(-) Semi-Structured Scale for the Evaluation of Personal Neglect
(-) Subjective Neglect Questionnaire
(-) Driving measures: (lateral position, oscillation, omissions, reaction times)

Webster et al., 2001

PEDro score: N/A (quasi-experimental study)

40 patients with chronic stroke and left unilateral spatial neglect

Computer-assisted training with wheelchair simulator (n=20)

 vs.

 Conventional rehabilitation (n=20).

 Treatment details:
Treatment was provided for 12-20 45-minute sessions that aimed to improve attention to stimuli in the neglected space and wheelchair and obstacle course (WCOC) tasks.

 Both groups also received conventional acute multidisciplinary rehabilitation.

At end of treatment: 
(+) Real-life wheelchair and obstacle course (WCOC) task – number of errors
(+) Real-life WCOC task – left-sided wheelchair hits
(+) Virtual WCOC – obstacle hits
(+) Video obstacle course test – obstacle hits
(+) Video tracking test – obstacle hits
(+) Falls during hospitalization

Wiart et al., 1997.

PEDro score: 4/10

 

 

22 patients with subacute stroke and severe left USN

Visual scanning with voluntary trunk rotation training using the (n=11)

Vs.

 Conventional neurorehabilitation (n=11).

 Treatment details:
Bon Saint Come method training was provided for 1 hour/day for 20 days, followed by 2-3 hours of traditional rehabilitation.

 The control group received 3-4 hours/day of conventional rehabilitation.

At day 30 (post-treatment):
(+) Scheckenberg line bisection test
(+) Albert’s line cancellation test
(+) Bell test
(+) Functional Independence Measure (FIM)

At day 60 (follow-up):
(+) Scheckenberg line bisection test
(+) Albert’s line cancellation test
(+) Bell test
(+) FIM

 

Weinberg et al., 1977.

PEDro Score: 4/10

 

57 patients with subacute stroke and left USN

Visual scanning training

 Vs.

 Conventional therapy

 Treatment details:
1-hr sessions daily over a 4-week period

At 4 weeks (post-treatment):
(-) Comprehensive neuropsychological battery

Weinberg et al., 1979.

PEDro score: 4/10

 

 

 

 

 

53 patients with subacute stroke and left USN

 

Visual scanning training + spatial and sensory awareness

 Vs.

 Conventional therapy

 Treatment details:
1-hr sessions daily over a 4-week period.

 

At 4 weeks (post-treatment):
(+) Comprehensive neuropsychological battery

Note: patients in the experimental group with severe impairments had significantly greater improvements following treatment as compared to those with mild impairments

Zeloni et al., 2002.

PEDro score: 3/10

 

 

 

11 patients with subacute or chronic stroke and left USN

Hemiblinding (n=5)

 Vs.

 No hemiblinding (n=6).

 Treatment details:
Visual occlusion of the right visual field using goggles, worn during waking hours for 1 week.

Neither group wore goggles for a following week.

At 1 week (post-treatment):
(-) Albert’s Test
(-) Line Cancellation Test
(-) Letter Cancellation Test
(-) Bell’s Test
(-) Copying a drawing
(-) Line bisection test

At 2 weeks (follow-up):
(-) Albert’s Test
(-) Line Cancellation Test
(-) Letter Cancellation Test
(-) Bell’s Test
(-) Copying a drawing
(-) Line bisection test

Was this text useful?

"Unilateral Spatial Neglect – Authors"
Answer Now Answer Later