Abstract
Abstract
Visuospatial neglect has been observed in the horizontal (left/right) and vertical (up/down) dimension and depends on the distance at which a task is presented (near/far). Previously, studies have mainly focused on investigating the overall severity of neglect in near and far space in a group of neglect patients instead of examining subgroups of neglect patients with different types of distance-specific neglect. We investigated the spatial specificity (near vs. far space), frequency, and severity of neglect in the horizontal and vertical dimensions in a large group of stroke patients. We used three tasks to assess neglect in near (30 cm) and far (120 cm) space: a shape cancellation, letter cancellation, and a line bisection task. Patients were divided into four groups based on their performance: a group without neglect (N–F–), a near only neglect (N+F–), a far only neglect (N–F+), and a near and far neglect group (N+F+). About 40% of our sample showed neglect. Depending on the task, N+F– was observed in 8 to 22% of the sample, whereas N–F+ varied between 8% and 11%, and N+F+ varied between 11% to 14% of the sample. The current findings indicate that horizontal and vertical biases in performance can be confined to one region of space and are task dependent. We recommend testing for far space neglect during neuropsychological assessments in clinical practice, because this cannot be diagnosed using standard paper-and-pencil tasks.
Visuospatial neglect has been observed in the horizontal (left/right) and vertical (up/down) dimension and depends on the distance at which a task is presented (near/far). Previously, studies have mainly focused on investigating the overall severity of neglect in near and far space in a group of neglect patients instead of examining subgroups of neglect patients with different types of distance-specific neglect. We investigated the spatial specificity (near vs. far space), frequency, and severity of neglect in the horizontal and vertical dimensions in a large group of stroke patients. We used three tasks to assess neglect in near (30 cm) and far (120 cm) space: a shape cancellation, letter cancellation, and a line bisection task. Patients were divided into four groups based on their performance: a group without neglect (N–F–), a near only neglect (N+F–), a far only neglect (N–F+), and a near and far neglect group (N+F+). About 40% of our sample showed neglect. Depending on the task, N+F– was observed in 8 to 22% of the sample, whereas N–F+ varied between 8% and 11%, and N+F+ varied between 11% to 14% of the sample. The current findings indicate that horizontal and vertical biases in performance can be confined to one region of space and are task dependent. We recommend testing for far space neglect during neuropsychological assessments in clinical practice, because this cannot be diagnosed using standard paper-and-pencil tasks.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 799-811 |
Number of pages | 13 |
Journal | Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology |
Volume | 35 |
Issue number | 8 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2013 |
Keywords
- Econometric and Statistical Methods: General
- Geneeskunde (GENK)
- Geneeskunde(GENK)
- Medical sciences
- Bescherming en bevordering van de menselijke gezondheid