↓ Skip to main content

The Feasibility of Computer-Based Prism Adaptation to Ameliorate Neglect in Sub-Acute Stroke Patients Admitted to a Rehabilitation Center

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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 Feasibility of Computer-Based Prism Adaptation to Ameliorate Neglect in Sub-Acute Stroke Patients Admitted to a Rehabilitation Center
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00353
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miranda Smit, Stefan Van der Stigchel, Johanna M. A. Visser-Meily, Mirjam Kouwenhoven, Anja L. H. Eijsackers, Tanja C. W. Nijboer

Abstract

Introduction: There is wide interest in transferring paper-and-pencil tests to a computer-based setting, resulting in more precise recording of performance. Here, we investigated the feasibility of computer-based testing and computer-based prism adaptation (PA) to ameliorate neglect in sub-acute stroke patients admitted to a rehabilitation center. Methods: Thirty-three neglect patients were included. PA was performed with a pair of goggles with wide-field point-to-point prismatic lenses inducing an ipsilesional optical shift of 10°. A variety of digitalized neuropsychological tests were performed using an interactive tablet immediately before and after PA. Results: All 33 patients [mean age 60.36 (SD 13.30)], [mean days post-stroke 63.73 (SD 37.74)] were able to work with the tablet and to understand, perform, and complete the digitalized tests within the proposed time-frame, indicating that there is feasibility of computer-based assessment in this stage post-stroke. Analyses of the efficacy of PA indicated no significant change on any of the outcome measures, except time. Discussion: In conclusion, there is feasibility of computer-based testing in such an early stage, which makes the computer-based setting a promising technique for evaluating more ecologically valid tasks. Secondly, the computer-based PA can be considered as a reliable procedure. We can conclude from our analysis, addressing the efficacy of PA, that the effectiveness of single session PA may not be sufficient to produce short-term effects on our static tasks. Further studies, however, need to be done to evaluate the computer-based efficacy with more ecologically valid assessments in an intensive double-blind, sham-controlled multiple PA treatment design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
India 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 80 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 14 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 May 2014.
All research outputs
#13,892,191
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,299
of 7,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,394
of 280,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#576
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 280,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.