The topography of training-induced visual field recovery: Perimetric maps and subjective representations

Comparison of Visual Field Training for Hemianopia With Active Versus Sham Transcranial Direct Cortical Stimulation

“…VRT training has been described in detail elsewhere. 31 Briefly, participants were seated in front of a computer screen at a constant viewing distance and instructed to detect (signaled by a key press) the presence of a flashed light stimulus while maintaining fixation on a central target. Built-in fixation monitoring required patients to respond to a color change of the central fixation target occurring at random intervals.…”

“…The area of the subjective affected field (in cm 2 ) was then calculated using custom software (Scion, 4.0.2; Frederick, Maryland). 31 To evaluate the effect of the intervention on activities of daily living (ADLs) and quality of life (QOL), 2 validated questionnaires were used: the Veterans Affairs Low Vision-Visual Functional Questionnaire (LV-VFQ) and the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) profile. The LV-VFQ assesses an individual's visual ability to perform ADLs across 4 domains, including reading, mobility, visual motor function, and visual processing, 35 whereas the IVI measures the impact of visual impairments on QOL and participation, including access to information, mobility and independence, and emotional well-being.…”

“…Previous studies of VRT describe a similar disconnect between changes in objective measures and patients' own subjective impressions of improvement. 24,31,39 This apparent mismatch may be explained by differences in the functional relevance ascribed to different regions of the field (eg, perifoveal vs peripheral) and the degree of awareness of the field deficit. 31 It should be noted, however, that the mismatch of subjective and objective findings may also have emerged from methdological factors such as sampling errors related to the relativley small sample size in the study.…”