↓ Skip to main content

Visual Scanning Training, Limb Activation Treatment, and Prism Adaptation for Rehabilitating Left Neglect: Who is the Winner?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
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.
Title
Visual Scanning Training, Limb Activation Treatment, and Prism Adaptation for Rehabilitating Left Neglect: Who is the Winner?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00360
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konstantinos Priftis, Laura Passarini, Cristina Pilosio, Francesca Meneghello, Marco Pitteri

Abstract

WE COMPARED, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE OVERALL AND DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF THREE OF THE MOST WIDELY USED LEFT NEGLECT (LN) TREATMENTS: visual scanning training (VST), limb activation treatment (LAT), and prism adaptation (PA). Thirty-three LN patients were assigned in quasi-random order to the three groups (VST, LAT, or PA). Each patient received only one type of treatment. LN patients' performance on everyday life tasks was assessed four times (over a period of 6 weeks): A1 and A2 (i.e., the two pre-treatment assessments); A3 and A4 (i.e., the two post-treatment assessments). LN patients in each of the three treatment conditions were treated for the same number of sessions (i.e., 20). The results showed that improvements were present in the majority of the tests assessing the peripersonal space in everyday life activities. Our findings were independent of unspecific factors and lasted for at least 2 weeks following the end of the treatments. There were no interactions, however, between LN treatments and assessments. We suggest that all three treatments can be considered as valid rehabilitation interventions for LN and could be employed for ameliorating LN signs.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 145 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 19%
Student > Master 27 18%
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 16%
Neuroscience 14 9%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 32 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 February 2021.
All research outputs
#14,755,210
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,902
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,315
of 280,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#645
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 280,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.