Objectives: The lack of agreement regarding assessment methods is responsible for the variability in the reported rate of occurrence of spatial neglect after stroke. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity of different tests of neglect after right hemisphere stroke. Methods: Two hundred and six subacute right hemisphere stroke patients were given a test battery including a preliminary assessment of anosognosia and of visual extinction, a clinical assessment of gaze orientation and of personal neglect, and paper and pencil tests of spatial neglect in the peripersonal space. Patients were compared with a previously reported control group. A subgroup of patients (n=69) received a behavioural assessment of neglect in daily life situations. Results: The most sensitive paper and pencil measure was the starting point in the cancellation task. The whole battery was more sensitive than any single test alone. About 85% of patients presented some degree of neglect on at least one measure. An important finding was that behavioural assessment of neglect in daily life was more sensitive than any other single measure of neglect. Behavioural neglect was considered as moderate to severe in 36% of cases. A factorial analysis revealed that paper and pencil tests were related to two underlying factors. Dissociations were found between extrapersonal neglect, personal neglect, anosognosia, and extinction. Anatomical analyses showed that neglect was more common and severe when the posterior association cortex was damaged. Conclusions: The automatic rightward orientation bias is the most sensitive clinical measure of neglect. Behavioural assessment is more sensitive than any single paper and pencil test. The results also support the assumption that neglect is a heterogeneous disorder.
Lesion location is the main determinant of aphasic disorders at the acute stage. Most clinical-radiologic correlations supported the classic anatomy of aphasia.
The frequency of occurrence of right neglect was, as expected, much lower than that reported in a study using the same assessment battery in right brain damage stroke patients. Nevertheless, neglect was found in a substantial proportion of patients at a subacute stage, suggesting that it should be considered in the rehabilitation planning of left brain damage stroke patients.
Results are reported from an international project the aim of which has been to develop and validate a wide-ranging questionnaire suitable for administration to brain-injured patients and their relatives. A self-report questionnaire concerning subjective experience of cognitive, emotional and social difficulties (The European Brain Injury Questionnaire, EBIQ) was administered to a group of 905 brain-injured patients, and close relatives to these competed a parallel version of the questionnaire concerning the brain-injured person. The sample was drawn from seven European countries together with Brazil. The same questionnaire was also administered to a group of 203-non-brain-injured controls, similarly in self-report and relative-report versions. Scales relating to eight specific areas of functioning, together with a global scale, are derived from the questionnaire and their internal reliability was estimated in the present data. Analyses of the 63 items of the questionnaire showed consistently greater levels of problems for the brain-injured group, especially as indicated by relatives. This pattern was substantially replicated among the nine scales. The scales discriminated well between stroke patients and those who had suffered a traumatic brain injury. There was also a tendency for reported problems to be greater for patients who were surveyed later post-injury (> or = 19 months) rather than earlier. Comparison of sets of controls derived from two countries (France and Brazil) showed small but important differences. It is concluded that the questionnaire has an acceptable reliability and validity, but that it will be necessary to obtain culturally relevant non-brain-injured control data when employing it in different countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.