↓ Skip to main content

Visual Rehabilitation in Chronic Cerebral Blindness: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Visual Rehabilitation in Chronic Cerebral Blindness: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Study
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00092
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joris A. Elshout, Freekje van Asten, Carel B. Hoyng, Douwe P. Bergsma, Albert V. van den Berg

Abstract

The treatment of patients suffering from cerebral blindness following stroke is a topic of much recent interest. Several types of treatment are under investigation, such as substitution with prisms and compensation training of saccades. A third approach, aimed at vision restitution is controversial, as a proper controlled study design is missing. In the current study, 27 chronic stroke patients with homonymous visual field defects were trained at home with a visual training device. We used a discrimination task for two types of stimuli: a static point stimulus and a new optic flow-discontinuity stimulus. Using a randomized controlled crossover design, each patient received two successive training rounds, one with high contrast stimuli in their affected hemifield (test) and one round with low-contrast stimuli in their intact hemifield (control). Goldmann and Humphrey perimetry were performed at the start of the study and following each training round. In addition, reading performance was measured. Goldmann perimetry revealed a statistically significant reduction of the visual field defect after the test training, but not after the control training or after no intervention. For both training rounds combined, Humphrey perimetry revealed that the effect of a directed training (sensitivity change in trained hemifield) exceeded that of an undirected training (sensitivity change in untrained hemifield). The interaction between trained and tested hemifield was just above the threshold of significance (p = 0.058). Interestingly, reduction of the field defect assessed by Goldmann perimetry increases with the difference between defect size as measured by Humphrey and Goldmann perimetry prior to training. Moreover, improvement of visual sensitivity measured by Humphrey perimetry increases with the fraction of non-responsive elements (i.e., more relative field loss) in Humphrey perimetry prior to training. Reading speed revealed a significant improvement after training. Our findings demonstrate that our training can result in reduction of the visual field. Improved reading performance after defect training further supports the significance of our training for improvement in daily life activities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Researcher 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,306,462
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,166
of 11,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,640
of 352,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#22
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 352,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.