↓ Skip to main content

The Mobility Assessment Course for the Diagnosis of Spatial Neglect: Taking a Step Forward?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
The Mobility Assessment Course for the Diagnosis of Spatial Neglect: Taking a Step Forward?
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00563
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan Grech, Tracey Stuart, Lindy Williams, Celia Chen, Tobias Loetscher

Abstract

Spatial neglect after stroke can be a challenging syndrome to diagnose under standard neuropsychological assessment. There is now sufficient evidence that those affected might demonstrate neglect behavior in everyday settings despite showing no signs of neglect during common neglect tasks. This discrepancy is attributed to the simplified and unrealistic nature of common pen and paper based tasks that do not match the demanding, novel, and complex environment of everyday life. As such, increasing task demands under more ecologically valid scenarios has become an important method of increasing test sensitivity. The main aim of the current study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of the Mobility Assessment Course (MAC), an ecological task, for the assessment of neglect. If neglect becomes more apparent under more challenging task demands the MAC could prove to be more diagnostically accurate at detecting neglect than conventional methods, particularly as the time from initial brain damage increases. Data collected by Guide Dogs of SA/NT were retrospectively analyzed. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, a measure of sensitivity and specificity, was used to investigate the diagnostic utility of the MAC and a series of paper and pencil tests in 67 right hemisphere stroke survivors. While the MAC proved to be a more sensitive neglect test (74.2%) when compared to the Star Cancellation (43.3%) and Line Bisection (35.7%) tests, this was at the expense of relatively low specificity. As a result, the ROC curve analysis showed no statistically discernable differences between tasks (p > 0.12), or between subacute and chronic groups for individual tasks (p > 0.45). It is concluded that, while the MAC is an ecologically valid alternative for assessing neglect, regarding its diagnostic accuracy, there is currently not enough evidence to suggest that it is a big step forward in comparison to the accuracy of conventional tests.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 20 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 21 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 August 2019.
All research outputs
#5,772,992
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,955
of 11,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,973
of 328,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#44
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,904 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 66% 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 328,927 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.