Letter to the Editor

Vanni, Simo; Henriksson, Linda; Hyvärinen, Lea; Näsänen, Risto; Raninen, Antti; Jobke, Sandra

doi:10.1177/1545968309347684

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the experimenter failed to ensure the presence of residual vision within the blind field before defining the positions for flicker stimulation. In other studies, flicker training consistently results in increased detection sensitivity even deep within the blind field (Hyvärinen et al, 2002 ; Sahraie et al, 2006 ; Vanni et al, 2010 ). However, as our discussion below shows, compensation and restoration are not mutually exclusive concepts and both are worthy of further study.…”

Section: How Compensation and Restoration Approaches Differmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…There has been a vigorous and controversial debate about whether vision restoration is possible at all (Sabel and Trauzettel-Klosinksi, 2005 ). On the one hand several authors have presented evidence that vision restoration is possible by behavioral training that activates areas with lowered perceptual thresholds or inconsistent light detection (Kasten et al, 1998 , 2006 ; Hyvärinen et al, 2002 ; Sabel et al, 2004 ; Sabel and Trauzettel-Klosinksi, 2005 ; Sahraie et al, 2006 ; Bouwmeester et al, 2007 ; Vanni et al, 2010 ). On the other hand, the fundamental concept of a functional restoration of vision has been vigorously opposed by different authors who argue that compensatory methods are the only way to help HVFD patients (Reinhard et al, 2005 ; Glisson, 2006 ; Pelak et al, 2007 ; Roth et al, 2009 ).…”

Section: How Compensation and Restoration Approaches Differmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual rehabilitation: visual scanning, multisensory stimulation and vision restoration trainings

Dundon

Bertini

Làdavas

et al. 2015

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuropsychological training methods of visual rehabilitation for homonymous vision loss caused by postchiasmatic damage fall into two fundamental paradigms: “compensation” and “restoration”. Existing methods can be classified into three groups: Visual Scanning Training (VST), Audio-Visual Scanning Training (AViST) and Vision Restoration Training (VRT). VST and AViST aim at compensating vision loss by training eye scanning movements, whereas VRT aims at improving lost vision by activating residual visual functions by training light detection and discrimination of visual stimuli. This review discusses the rationale underlying these paradigms and summarizes the available evidence with respect to treatment efficacy. The issues raised in our review should help guide clinical care and stimulate new ideas for future research uncovering the underlying neural correlates of the different treatment paradigms. We propose that both local “within-system” interactions (i.e., relying on plasticity within peri-lesional spared tissue) and changes in more global “between-system” networks (i.e., recruiting alternative visual pathways) contribute to both vision restoration and compensatory rehabilitation, which ultimately have implications for the rehabilitation of cognitive functions.

show abstract

Section: How Compensation and Restoration Approaches Differmentioning

confidence: 69%