| Title |
Capturing saccades in multiple sclerosis with a digitized test of rapid number naming
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-017-8484-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clotilde Hainline, John-Ross Rizzo, Todd E. Hudson, Weiwei Dai, Joel Birkemeier, Jenelle Raynowska, Rachel C. Nolan, Lisena Hasanaj, Ivan Selesnick, Teresa C. Frohman, Elliot M. Frohman, Steven L. Galetta, Laura J. Balcer, Janet C. Rucker |
| Abstract |
The King-Devick (K-D) test of rapid number naming is a visual performance measure that captures saccadic eye movements. Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have slowed K-D test times associated with neurologic disability and reduced quality of life. We assessed eye movements during the K-D test to identify characteristics associated with slowed times. Participants performed a computerized K-D test with video-oculography. The 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) and its 10-Item Neuro-Ophthalmic Supplement measured vision-specific quality of life (VSQOL). Among 25 participants with MS (age 37 ± 10 years, range 20-59) and 42 controls (age 33 ± 9 years, range 19-54), MS was associated with significantly longer (worse) K-D times (58.2 ± 19.8 vs. 43.8 ± 8.6 s, P = 0.001, linear regression models, accounting for age). In MS, test times were slower among patients with higher (worse) Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (P = 0.01). Average inter-saccadic intervals (ISI) were significantly longer in MS participants compared to controls (362 ± 103 vs. 286 ± 50 ms, P = 0.001), and were highly associated with prolonged K-D times in MS (P = 0.006). MS participants generated greater numbers of saccades (P = 0.007). VSQOL scores were reduced in MS patients with longer (worse) K-D times (P = 0.04-0.001) and longer ISI (P = 0.002-0.001). Patients with MS have slowed K-D times that may be attributable to prolonged ISI and greater numbers of saccades. The K-D test and its requisite eye movements capture VSQOL and make rapid number naming a strong candidate efferent visual performance measure in MS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 16 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 8% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2017.
All research outputs
#16,870,624
of 24,804,602 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#3,558
of 4,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,855
of 315,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#37
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,804,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.