Visual field deficit (VFD) is one of the most commonly observed symptoms following brain injury. Persistent VFD and defective exploratory oculomotor scanning patterns often cause severe impairment in daily activities, particularly as regards visual exploration and reading. Homonymous hemianopia is consequently a powerful negative predictor of patient outcome. In spite of these quantitative and qualitative factors, there currently exists no consensus on rehabilitative therapy and treatment. Different approaches have nevertheless been developed, all of them having one therapeutic principle in common; repeated practice of a specific visual task, with the hope/expectation that improved performance will extend to a wide range of ecologically useful visual functions. The four main available methods aim at replacing part of the intact visual field with part of the damaged visual field (optical therapy using prisms), at partially restoring the lost visual field region (restorative therapies), at stimulating detection capacities in the blind field (stimulation or blindsight) or at substituting for the lost region by reorganizing the control of visual information processing and eye movements (compensatory therapies). This review explores the key data relative to these different approaches in terms of behavioral or imagery results. It also aims at critically analyzing the advantages and limits of each one. The importance of strict assessment in terms of deficiencies or disabilities is underlined. Finally, upon consideration of these data taken as a whole, it is suggested that efficient treatment would probably have to associate general components and more specific elements, according to what may be done with regard to other aspects of cognitive rehabilitation.

Homonymous Visual Field Defects (HVFD) are common following stroke and can be highly debilitating for visual perception and higher level cognitive functions such as exploring visual scene or reading a text. Rehabilitation using oculomotor compensatory methods with automatic training over a short duration (~15 days) have been shown as efficient as longer voluntary training methods (>1 month). Here, we propose to evaluate and compare the effect of an original HVFD rehabilitation method based on a single 15 min voluntary anti-saccades task (AS) toward the blind hemifield, with automatic sensorimotor adaptation to increase AS amplitude. In order to distinguish between adaptation and training effect, 14 left- or right-HVFD patients were exposed, 1 month apart, to three trainings, two isolated AS task (Delayed-shift and No-shift paradigm), and one combined with AS adaptation (Adaptation paradigm). A quality of life questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) and functional measurements (reading speed, visual exploration time in pop-out and serial tasks) as well as oculomotor measurements were assessed before and after each training. We could not demonstrate significant adaptation at the group level, but we identified a group of nine adapted patients. While AS training itself proved to demonstrate significant functional improvements in the overall patient group, we could also demonstrate in the sub-group of adapted patients and specifically following the adaptation training, an increase of saccade amplitude during the reading task (left-HVFD patients) and the Serial exploration task, and improvement of the visual quality of life. We conclude that short-lasting AS training combined with adaptation could be implemented in rehabilitation methods of cognitive dysfunctions following HVFD. Indeed, both voluntary and automatic processes have shown interesting effects on the control of visually guided saccades in different cognitive tasks.