1971
DOI: 10.1177/030802267103400705
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of Parietal Lobe Function in Hemiplegia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Inclusion criteria included: (1) age 21-80, (2) one or more cerebral strokes, (3) a stroke at least six months prior to enrollment, (4) gait asymmetry greater than 2.5% step length or stance phase based on the pre-test, but able to walk either with or without a cane for at least five minutes, (5) no evidence of uncompensated hemianopsia, tested by using Pedretti's method [31], (6) no evidence of severe (less than 16 in the Folstein Mini-Mental Status Exam) cognitive impairment [32] or language dysfunction that would interfere with understanding the instructions, and (7) no evidence of neglect, tested by being asked to copy a simple drawing of a house [33]. Exclusion criteria included: (1) orthopedic or pain conditions, (2) uncontrolled seizures, (3) metal implants (e.g., stents, clips, pacemaker), (4) pregnancy, (5) any condition that makes balance unstable, and (6) uncorrected visual impairments.…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Inclusion criteria included: (1) age 21-80, (2) one or more cerebral strokes, (3) a stroke at least six months prior to enrollment, (4) gait asymmetry greater than 2.5% step length or stance phase based on the pre-test, but able to walk either with or without a cane for at least five minutes, (5) no evidence of uncompensated hemianopsia, tested by using Pedretti's method [31], (6) no evidence of severe (less than 16 in the Folstein Mini-Mental Status Exam) cognitive impairment [32] or language dysfunction that would interfere with understanding the instructions, and (7) no evidence of neglect, tested by being asked to copy a simple drawing of a house [33]. Exclusion criteria included: (1) orthopedic or pain conditions, (2) uncontrolled seizures, (3) metal implants (e.g., stents, clips, pacemaker), (4) pregnancy, (5) any condition that makes balance unstable, and (6) uncorrected visual impairments.…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many therapists follow a remedial perceptual retraining approach for this aspect of treatment (Holzer, Stiassny, Senner-Hurley, & Lefkowitz, 1982;Hopkins & Smith, 1988;Prigitano, 1986;Trombly, 19R9;Van Deusen, 1988;Wahlstrom, 1983;Zoltan, Siev, & Freishtat, 1986). Remedial perceptual retraining involves using treatment tasks like construCtion of puzzles to give clients practice in impaired perceptual skills that contribute to poor functional performance (Anderson & Choy, 1970;Gregory & Aitken, 1971;Holzer et aI., 1982;Neistadt, 1990;Wahlstrom, 1983) Therapist teaching and client learning are inherent in perceptual retraining, hut occupational therapists have only recently hegun to exrlicitly analyze these treatment procedures from a learning theory perspective (Neistadt. 1990;Toglia, 1991;Warren, 1993) AnalyZing perceptual retraining as learning can yield insights into mexe effective ways to structure this type of treatment and more precise wavs to identify clients who might benefit from it.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach involves the use of tabletop perceptual drills or activities, such as par quetry block, pegboard, and puzzle assembly, to pro mote normal skill levels. Although the occupational therapy literature suggests specific drills or activities for specific perceptual deficits, it does not offer de tailed gUidelines and protocols for the use of those activities in treatment (Abreu & Toglia, 1987;Ander son & Choy, 1970;Gregory & Aitken, 1971;Holzer, Stiassny, Senner-Hurley, & Lefkowitz, 1982;Hopkins & Smith, 1983;Siev et al, 1986). Research is needed to establish such protocols so that perceptual deficits can be treated more systematically.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%