The assessment of hemineglect syndrome with cancellation tasks: a comparison between the Bells test and the Apples test

Methodological comparison of cancellation versus two-way choice spatial attention tests in humans and dogs

Introduction

Behavioural problems in family dogs are amongst the leading reasons for relinquishment to shelters which adversely affects animal welfare. Recent research suggests that certain problematic behavioural patterns might be analogous to human psychiatric disorders. Veterinary diagnosis of such conditions, however, is scarce, probably due to the lack of appropriate measurement tools. The current study focuses on dog behaviour resembling the human hemispatial neglect condition, which manifests itself as a deficit in attention to and awareness of one side of the space.

Methods

Healthy human subjects (N = 21) and adult family dogs (N = 23) were tested with tools aimed to measure spatial attention. Tests administered to humans included validated paper and pencil neuropsychological tools to assess hemispatial neglect (cancellation tasks), as well as the canine version of that task (visuo-spatial search task). Dogs were tested with the same visuo-spatial search task as well as a two-way choice task.

Results

Results show that both in case of dogs and humans the visuo-spatial search task detects individual variation in subjects' side preferences. However, subjects' performance in the different tasks were not related.

Validation of "Neurit.Space": Three Digital Tests for the Neuropsychological Evaluation of Unilateral Spatial Neglect

Patients suffering from Unilateral Spatial Neglect (USN) fail to pay attention to, respond to, and report sensory events occurring in the contralesional side of space. The traditional neuropsychological assessment of USN is based on paper-and-pencil tests, whose data recording and scoring may be subjected to human error. The utilization of technological devices can be expected to improve the assessment of USN. Therefore, we built Neurit.Space, a modified digital version of three paper-and-pencil tests, widely used to detect signs of USN, namely: Bells Cancellation, Line Bisection and Five Elements Drawing Test. Administration and data processing is fully automatic. Twelve right brain-damaged patients (six with and six without USN) and 12 age- and education-balanced healthy participants were enrolled in the study. All participants were administered both the computerized and the paper-and-pencil versions of the tests. The results of this preliminary study showed good sensitivity, specificity, and usability of Neurit.Space, suggesting that these digital tests are a promising tool for the evaluation of USN, both in clinical and in research settings.

Computer-Based Assessment: Dual-Task Outperforms Large-Screen Cancellation Task in Detecting Contralesional Omissions

Objective: Traditionally, asymmetric spatial processing (i.e., hemispatial neglect) has been assessed with paper-and-pencil tasks, but growing evidence indicates that computer-based methods are a more sensitive assessment modality. It is not known, however, whether simply converting well-established paper-and-pencil methods into a digital format is the best option. The aim of the present study was to compare sensitivity in detecting contralesional omissions of two different computer-based methods: a "digitally converted" cancellation task was compared with a computer-based Visual and Auditory dual-tasking approach, which has already proved to be very sensitive. Methods: Participants included 40 patients with chronic unilateral stroke in either the right hemisphere (RH patients, N = 20) or the left hemisphere (LH patients, N = 20) and 20 age-matched healthy controls. The cancellation task was implemented on a very large format (173 cm × 277 cm) or in a smaller (A4) paper-and-pencil version. The computer-based dual-tasks were implemented on a 15'' monitor and required the detection of unilateral and bilateral briefly presented lateralized targets. Results: Neither version of the cancellation task was able to show spatial bias in RH patients. In contrast, in the Visual dual-task RH patients missed significantly more left-sided targets than controls in both unilateral and bilateral trials. They also missed significantly more left-sided than right-sided targets only in the bilateral trials of the Auditory dual-task. Conclusion: The dual-task setting outperforms the cancellation task approach even when the latter is implemented on a (large) screen. Attentionally demanding methods are useful for revealing mild forms of contralesional visuospatial deficits.

Spatial Neglect Subtypes, Definitions and Assessment Tools: A Scoping Review

Objective: The objective of this scoping review was to capture the reported definitions for the subtypes of neglect post stroke and map the range of assessment tools employed for each neglect subtype.

Methods: EMBASE, Emcare, Medline, and psychINFO were searched from database inception. Searching included all allied terms and mesh headings for stroke, spatial neglect, measurement, screening tools, psychometric properties. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion. Primary studies with documented protocols of a spatial neglect tool for adults post stroke, with some aspect of validity or reliability were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed the documented protocols of each tool to determine the underlying subtypes and disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Results: There were 371 articles included with 292 tools used for the screening or diagnosis of neglect. The majority of studies (67%) included a tool that did not specify the neglect subtype being assessed, therefore an analysis of the underlying subtypes for each tool is presented.

Conclusions: There is no consistency with the terms used to refer to the syndrome of spatial neglect with over 200 different terms used within the included studies to refer to the syndrome as a whole or one of its subtypes. It is essential to unify the terminology and definition for each neglect subtype. There are hundreds of neglect tools available, however many are not able to differentiate presenting subtypes. It is important for clinicians and researchers to critically evaluate the neglect tools being used for the screening and diagnosis of neglect.

Critical issue on the extinction and inattention subtest of NIHSS scale: an analysis on post-acute stroke patients attending inpatient rehabilitation

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of NIHSS extinction and inattention item, compared to the results of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) heart subtest. Additionally, the possible role of the NIHSS visual field subtest on the NIHSS extinction and inattention subtest performance is explored and discussed.

Methods

We analysed scores on NIHSS extinction and inattention subtest, NIHSS visual field subtest, and OCS heart subtest on a sample of 118 post-stroke patients.

Results

Compared to OCS heart subtest, the results on NIHSS extinction and inattention subtest showed an accuracy of 72.9% and a moderate agreement level (Cohen’s kappa = 0.404). Furthermore, a decrease in NIHSS accuracy detecting neglect (61.1%) was observed in patients with pathological scores in NIHSS visual field item.

Conclusions

Extreme caution is recommended for the diagnostic performance of extinction and inattention item of NIHSS. Signs of neglect may not be detected by NIHSS, and may be confused with visual field impairment.

Trial registration

This study refers to an observational study protocol submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier: NCT03968627. The name of the registry is “Development of a National Protocol for Stroke Rehabilitation in a Multicenter Italian Institution” and the date of the registration is the 30th May 2019.

The Effects of Continuous vs. Intermittent Prism Adaptation Protocols for Treating Visuospatial Neglect: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Visuospatial neglect may interfere with activities of daily living (ADL). Prism adaptation (PA) is one treatment option and may involve two components: recalibration (more strategic) and realignment (more implicit). We examined whether recalibration or realignment is the driving force in neglect rehabilitation using PA. In a randomized controlled trial with two recruitment series and a cross-over design, 24 neglect patients were allocated to a continuous (PA-c) or intermittent (PA-i) PA procedure. During the PA-c condition, goggles were worn without doffing. In the PA-i condition, patients donned goggles twice (first series of patients) or three times (second series) during training to induce more recalibrations. Primary outcome parameters were performance (omissions) on the Apples Cancellation Test and ADL scores. To assess the efficacy of the PA treatment, we compared effect sizes of the current study with those from three groups from previous studies at the same rehabilitation unit: (1) a passive treatment with a similar intensity, (2) a placebo treatment with a similar intensity, and (3) a PA treatment with fewer therapy sessions. Treatment conditions did not significantly predict scores on primary and most secondary outcome parameters. However, the spontaneous ipsilesional body orientation improved only in patients receiving the PA-i condition and this improvement also appeared in patients showing a strong after-effect (irrespective of condition). Effect sizes for the Apples Cancellation Test and the Functional Independence Measure were larger for both PA treatment protocols than the historical control groups. We conclude that more recalibrations during an intermittent PA treatment may have a beneficial effect on spontaneous body orientation but not on other aspects of neglect or on ADL performance. Clinical Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register, identifier: DRKS00018813, DRKS00021539.

Dual-Task in Large Perceptual Space Reveals Subclinical Hemispatial Neglect

OBJECTIVE

Both clinically observable and subclinical hemispatial neglect are related to functional disability. The aim of the present study was to examine whether increasing task complexity improves sensitivity in assessment and whether it enables the identification of subclinical neglect.

METHOD

We developed and compared two computerized dual-tasks, a simpler and a more complex one, and presented them on a large, 173 × 277 cm screen. Participants in the study included 40 patients with unilateral stroke in either the left hemisphere (LH patient group, n = 20) or the right hemisphere (RH patient group, n = 20) and 20 healthy controls. In addition to the large-screen tasks, all participants underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. The Bells Test was used as a traditional paper-and-pencil cancellation test to assess neglect.

RESULTS

RH patients made significantly more left hemifield omission errors than controls in both large-screen tasks. LH patients' omissions did not differ significantly from those of the controls in either large-screen task. No significant group differences were observed in the Bells Test. All groups' reaction times were significantly slower in the more complex large-screen task compared to the simpler one. The more complex large-screen task also produced significantly slower reactions to stimuli in the left than in the right hemifield in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results suggest that dual-tasks presented on a large screen sensitively reveal subclinical neglect in stroke. New, sensitive, and ecologically valid methods are needed to evaluate subclinical neglect.

Current clinical practice in the screening and diagnosis of spatial neglect post-stroke: Findings from a multidisciplinary international survey

Spatial neglect has profound implications for quality of life after stroke, yet we lack consensus for screening/diagnosing this heterogeneous syndrome. Our first step in a multi-stage research programme aimed to determine which neglect tests are used (within four categories: cognitive, functional, neurological and neuroimaging/neuromodulation), by which stroke clinicians, in which countries, and whether choice is by professional autonomy or institutional policy. 454 clinicians responded to an online survey: 12 professions (e.g., 39% were occupational therapists) from 33 countries (e.g., 38% from the UK). Multifactorial logistic regression suggested inter-professional differences but fewer differences between countries (Italy was an outlier). Cognitive tests were used by 82% (particularly by psychologists, cancellation and drawing were most popular); 80% used functional assessments (physiotherapists were most likely). 20% (mainly physicians, from Italy) used neuroimaging/ neuromodulation. Professionals largely reported clinical autonomy in their choices. Respondents agreed on the need for a combined approach to screening and further training. This study raises awareness of the translation gap between theory and practice. These findings lay an important foundation to subsequent collaborative action between clinicians, researchers and stroke survivors to reach consensus on screening and diagnostic measures. The immediate next step is a review of the measures' psychometric properties.

Detailed Vision Screening Results from a Cohort of Individuals with Aphasia

BACKGROUND

Visual functioning is often affected in persons with aphasia following stroke and other brain injuries. Characterizing the visual functioning of persons with aphasia is imperative in both clinical and research domains; however, visual functioning of persons with aphasia is infrequently assessed or described in either domain.

AIMS

This study aims to examine the utility of various visual screening measures as indicated by Hallowell (2008) and document the results of the screening tools for a cohort of persons with aphasia.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Twenty-three individuals with chronic aphasia completed a detailed vision screening using a visual case history, the Visual Activities Questionnaire, the McDowell Vision Screening, an Amsler grid, the line bisection task, and the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale item 3-visual.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Two-thirds of the participants reported significant visual histories with only one participant reporting stroke-related visual deficits. On average, the group rated visual difficulty during daily activities as never or rarely occurring, with the least difficulty reported for color discrimination and the most difficulty with visual acuity and visual search, though still only occurring rarely. All participants passed the cover/uncover screening task measuring ocular alignment and motility, the color perception screening task, and several tasks measuring ocular function. Failing scores, however, were assigned for about half of the participants for distance visual acuity, and only three participants for near visual acuity. Visual fields were normal for about two-thirds of the participants and all participants presented with normal visual attention.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that visual deficits are common in persons with aphasia, but are not necessarily related to the stroke that the person experienced. The results highlight the need to screen the vision of persons with aphasia both for clinical purposes and research protocols to ensure visual deficits are treated, compensated for, or controlled.

Robot Diagnosis Test for Egocentric and Allocentric Hemineglect

OBJECTIVE

Patients with hemineglect fail to respond to egocentric stimuli or allocentric parts of stimuli contralateral to the brain lesion. The clinical diagnosis of hemineglect mainly involves evaluation of the egocentric form, while less sensitive standardized tests exist for other forms. Our global aim is to develop an innovative integrative robot measure, the MonAmour test, combining the assessment of egocentric, allocentric and motor hemineglect. Here, we present the egocentric and allocentric evaluations.

METHODS

Thirty-five first stroke patients (25 hemineglect) and 56 age-matched healthy controls were assessed on the index test (MonAmour) and on three reference standard tests (Bells test, Apples test and Neglect subtest of the Test for Attentional Performance). Based on controls' performance, normative data were created. Validity was evaluated between the MonAmour and the reference standard tests through correlations and test sensitivity/specificity. Reliability of the MonAmour was measured with test-retest and minimal detectable change.

RESULTS

Results demonstrated moderate to strong correlations between the MonAmour and the reference standard tests (r = .40-.88, p < .001 - p = .016). The sensitivity was high (50%-96%), with accurate diagnosis of patients with hemineglect, and reliability was excellent (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = .79-.95, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The MonAmour robot test is a valid, sensitive and reliable tool that can diagnose egocentric and allocentric hemineglect. Future studies will deepen the assessment and understanding of the different forms of hemineglect by testing the motor component of the test in order to use this accurate and integrative measure in daily clinical routine.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT02543424).