The Effects of Continuous vs. Intermittent Prism Adaptation Protocols for Treating Visuospatial Neglect: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
continuous training
intermittent training
neglect
prism adaptation
realignment
recalibration
rehabilitation
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
16
07
2021
accepted:
29
10
2021
entrez:
6
12
2021
pubmed:
7
12
2021
medline:
7
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34867725
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.742727
pmc: PMC8639507
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
742727Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Scheffels, Korabova, Eling, Kastrup and Hildebrandt.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Iperception. 2015 Aug 31;6(4):2041669515599308
pubmed: 27433319
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013 Apr;84(4):366-9
pubmed: 23071349
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2020 Mar;30(2):187-206
pubmed: 29860929
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2021 Jun;31(5):710-730
pubmed: 32102605
Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6-18
pubmed: 3503663
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Dec;31(12):1017-1028
pubmed: 29192535
Prog Neurobiol. 2001 Jan;63(1):1-27
pubmed: 11040416
Neuropsychologia. 2012 May;50(6):1158-63
pubmed: 21964198
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005 May;29(3):431-44
pubmed: 15820548
J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Feb;19(2):341-50
pubmed: 17280521
Brain Sci. 2019 Nov 16;9(11):
pubmed: 31744104
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2020 Jan;30(1):32-53
pubmed: 29558241
Neuropsychologia. 2002;40(7):718-29
pubmed: 11900724
Learn Mem. 1999 Jan-Feb;6(1):47-53
pubmed: 10355523
Neuropsychologia. 2002;40(3):327-34
pubmed: 11684165
Exp Brain Res. 2016 Oct;234(10):2761-72
pubmed: 27206500
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2018 Nov;32(11):988-998
pubmed: 30328767
Neurology. 1980 May;30(5):509-17
pubmed: 7189256
Brain. 2006 Feb;129(Pt 2):293-305
pubmed: 16371409
Neuropsychology. 2011 Sep;25(5):567-80
pubmed: 21574718
Neuropsychologia. 2008 Mar 7;46(4):1069-80
pubmed: 18083203
Nat Rev Neurol. 2012 Oct;8(10):567-77
pubmed: 22926312
Cortex. 2020 Feb;123:57-71
pubmed: 31759324
Neurosci Res. 2020 Apr;153:8-21
pubmed: 30910735
Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 1995 May;34(2):69-73
pubmed: 7624593
Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(1):1-20
pubmed: 15907951
Cortex. 2013 Nov-Dec;49(10):2616-27
pubmed: 23969194
Baillieres Clin Neurol. 1993 Aug;2(2):439-60
pubmed: 8137008
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Oct;25(8):711-20
pubmed: 21700922
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020 Jan 10;16:131-152
pubmed: 32021206
J Mot Behav. 2002 Jun;34(2):126-38
pubmed: 12057886
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 22;16(1):e0245425
pubmed: 33481828
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987 Feb;68(2):98-102
pubmed: 3813864
J Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Apr;33(4):563-573
pubmed: 33378244
Percept Psychophys. 1993 Sep;54(3):355-64
pubmed: 8414894
Neurology. 1983 Jun;33(6):766-72
pubmed: 6682520
Neurol Sci. 2015 Jul;36(7):1233-40
pubmed: 25618236
J Mot Behav. 2001 Dec;33(4):401-12
pubmed: 11734414
Cortex. 2020 Aug;129:329-340
pubmed: 32559507
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Jul-Aug;27(6):534-41
pubmed: 23471178
Curr Opin Neurol. 2006 Dec;19(6):534-42
pubmed: 17102690
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Jul;14(7):308-16
pubmed: 20444640
Neuropsychologia. 2011 Apr;49(5):1136-1145
pubmed: 21310165
J Neurophysiol. 2015 Oct;114(4):2460-71
pubmed: 26311179
Neurol Sci. 2017 Dec;38(12):2171-2176
pubmed: 28980076
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Oct;73(4):412-9
pubmed: 12235310
Exp Brain Res. 2017 Jun;235(6):1759-1770
pubmed: 28285406
Brain. 2002 Mar;125(Pt 3):608-23
pubmed: 11872617
Neuropsychologia. 2018 Jul 1;115:188-203
pubmed: 29248498
Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Apr 30;9:243
pubmed: 25983688
Neuropsychologia. 2012 May;50(6):1072-9
pubmed: 22306520
J Mot Behav. 1997 Jun;29(2):119-30
pubmed: 12453789
Nature. 1998 Sep 10;395(6698):166-9
pubmed: 9744273
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2008;26(1):1-12
pubmed: 18431002
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Mar;169(3):417-26
pubmed: 16328305