Douwe P. Bergsma, Joris A. Elshout, Albert V. van den Berg
Abstract
Whether rehabilitation after stroke profits from an early start is difficult to establish as the contributions of spontaneous recovery and treatment are difficult to tease apart. Here, we use a novel training design to dissociate these components for visual rehabilitation of subacute stroke patients with visual field defects such as hemianopia. Visual discrimination training was started within 6 weeks after stroke in 17 patients. Spontaneous and training-induced recoveries were distinguished by training one-half of the defect for 8 weeks, while monitoring spontaneous recovery in the other (control) half of the defect. Next, trained and control regions were swapped, and training continued for another 8 weeks. The same paradigm was also applied to seven chronic patients for whom spontaneous recovery can be excluded and changes in the control half of the defect point to a spillover effect of training. In both groups, field stability was assessed during a no-intervention period. Defect reduction was significantly greater in the trained part of the defect than in the simultaneously untrained part of the defect irrespective of training onset (p = 0.001). In subacute patients, training contributed about twice as much to their defect reduction as the spontaneous recovery. Goal Attainment Scores were significantly and positively correlated with the total defect reduction (p = 0.01), percentage increase reading speed was significantly and positively correlated with the defect reduction induced by training (epoch 1: p = 0.0044; epoch 2: p = 0.023). Visual training adds significantly to the spontaneous recovery of visual field defects, both during training in the early and the chronic stroke phase. However, field recovery as a result of training in this subacute phase was as large as in the chronic phase. This suggests that patients benefited primarily of early onset training by gaining access to a larger visual field sooner.
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 17 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,456,235
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,929
of 11,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#375,105
of 439,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#146
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 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 11,905 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 439,646 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 203 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.
