Spatial neglect treatment: The brain's spatial-motor Aiming systems

Recent advances in treatment of spatial neglect: networks and neuropsychology

INTRODUCTION

Spatial neglect remains an underdiagnosed and undertreated consequence of stroke that imposes significant disability. A growing appreciation of brain networks involved in spatial cognition is helping us to develop a mechanistic understanding of different therapies under development.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on neuromodulation of brain networks for the treatment of spatial neglect after stroke, using evidence-based approaches including 1) Cognitive strategies that are more likely to impact frontal lobe executive function networks; 2) Visuomotor adaptation, which may depend on the integrity of parietal and parieto- and subcortical-frontal connections and the presence of a particular subtype of neglect labeled Aiming neglect; 3) Non-invasive brain stimulation that may modulate relative levels of activity of the two hemispheres and depend on corpus callosum connectivity; and 4) Pharmacological modulation that may exert its effect primarily via right-lateralized networks more closely involved in arousal.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite promising results from individual studies, significant methodological heterogeneity between trials weakened conclusions drawn from meta-analyses. Improved classification of spatial neglect subtypes will benefit research and clinical care. Understanding the brain network mechanisms of different treatments and different types of spatial neglect will make possible a precision medicine treatment approach.

Prism Adaptation Treatment of Spatial Neglect: Feasibility During Inpatient Rehabilitation and Identification of Patients Most Likely to Benefit

Objective

Spatial Neglect is prevalent among stroke survivors, yet few treatments have evidence supporting efficacy. This study examines the feasibility of Prism Adaptation Treatment (PAT) within an inpatient rehabilitation facility and the degree by which PAT improves symptoms of spatial neglect and functional independence among sub-acute survivors of right hemispheric stroke.

Design

In this retrospective cohort study, 37 right hemispheric stroke patients were identified as having received at least 4 PAT sessions during their inpatient stay. Spatial neglect and functional independence levels of patients in the PAT cohort were compared to a matched active control group comprised of rehabilitation patients receiving alternative therapies to address neglect admitted during the same time period.

Results

Most patients received the full recommended 10 sessions of PAT (average sessions completed = 8.6). A higher percentage of severe neglect patients receiving PAT (69%) displayed clinically significant gains on FIM (≥22 points) compared to those receiving alternative treatments (6%). Patients with mild or moderate neglect in the PAT cohort did not exhibit greater benefit than controls.

Conclusion

Provision of PAT for treatment of spatial neglect in right hemispheric stroke patients was feasible during the inpatient rehabilitation admission. Patients with severe neglect showed the most benefit from PAT.

Clinical Trial Registration

This study was registered as a retrospective observational study on Itab Clinical Trials.gov. NCT04977219.

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.