The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Contralesional Trunk Rotation Dissociates Real vs. Pseudo-Visual Field Defects due to Visual Neglect in Stroke Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2017.00411 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Nyffeler, Rebecca E. Paladini, Simone Hopfner, Oliver Job, Tobias Nef, Tobias Pflugshaupt, Tim Vanbellingen, Stephan Bohlhalter, René M. Müri, Georg Kerkhoff, Dario Cazzoli |
| Abstract |
In stroke patients, the clinical presentation of visual field defects (VFDs) is frequently accompanied by visual neglect, i.e., the inability to attend and respond to the contralesional space. However, the diagnostic discrimination between the lack of reactions to contralesional stimuli due to VFDs or visual neglect is challenging during clinical examination. This discrimination is particularly relevant, since both clinical pictures are associated with different therapeutic approaches and outcomes. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate the effectiveness of trunk rotation toward the contralesional side-a manipulation dissociating the coordinate system of the trunk from that of the head and eyes-in disentangling real VFDs from "pseudo-VFDs" that occur due to visual neglect. Twenty patients with a left-sided VFD after a right-hemispheric stroke (10 additionally showing visual neglect in neuropsychological testing, VFD + neglect; 10 without neglect, VFD) were tested with Goldmann perimetry in both standard and trunk rotation conditions. In the standard condition, both VFD and VFD + neglect patients showed a conspicuous narrowing of the left visual field. However, trunk rotation triggered strikingly different patterns of change in the two groups: it elicited a significant increase in visual field extension in the VFD + neglect group, but left visual field extension virtually unchanged in the VFD group. Our results highlight contralesional trunk rotation as a simple, viable manipulation to effectively and rapidly disentangle real VFDs from "pseudo-VFDs" (i.e., due to visual neglect) during clinical examination. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 6 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 12% |
| Psychology | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,442,790
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,907
of 11,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,247
of 318,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#159
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,895 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 318,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.