This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Potter, J. Articles by Donnelly, N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Potter, J. Articles by Donnelly, N. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Computer recording of standard tests of visual neglect in stroke patients

Tony Deighton

Mehool Patel

Stroke Research Unit, Kent & Canterbury Hospital, Canterbury, UK

Michael Fairhurst

Richard Guest

Department of Electronic Engineering, Canterbury, UK

Nick Donnelly

Department of Social Psychology, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK

Objective: To determine whether a computer-based method for recording standardized assessment of neglect identifies abnormalities in the ‘process’ as well as in the ‘outcome’ of such tasks.

Design: Prospective sequential assessment of patients admitted to a stroke rehabilitation unit.

Subjects: All consecutive patients with right-sided cerebrovascular accident confirmed on computerized tomography (CT) scan including 30 patients with neglect, 57 patients without neglect. An age-matched control group of 13 subjects.

Intervention: All patients were tested using the standard Rivermead Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT) and by computer recording of two standard tests for assessing neglect (line bisection and Albert's test). Age-matched controls were tested using computer recording of the two standard tests.

Main outcome measures: Neglect was defined using the BIT with a cut-off score of 129. Computer recording measured the ‘outcome’ of tasks, i.e. the deviation from midline and omissions in cancellation, as well as the ‘process’ of tasks, i.e. time between cancellations, components of cancellation time including premovement, movement and drawing time, and the starting point for cancellation.

Results: The computer recording identified significant differences in ‘outcome’ and ‘process’ which distinguished neglect from non-neglect patients. There were significant differences between non-neglect patients and age-matched controls with regard to ‘process’ measures but not with regard to ‘outcome’ measures.

Conclusions: Computer recording of standard tests for assessing neglect identifies novel impairments with regard to the process of carrying out tasks. These impairments may be used to investigate changes in neglect with time, the response of neglect to treatment and to explore further the neuropsychological changes associated with neglect in stroke patients.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. W. Mark, A. J. Woods, K. K. Ball, D. L. Roth, and M. Mennemeier Disorganized search on cancellation is not a consequence of neglect Neurology, July 13, 2004; 63(1): 78 - 84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]