↓ Skip to main content

Novel Insights in the Rehabilitation of Neglect

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
298 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
Novel Insights in the Rehabilitation of Neglect
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00780
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciano Fasotti, Marlies van Kessel

Abstract

Visuospatial neglect due to right hemisphere damage, usually a stroke, is a major cause of disability, impairing the ability to perform a whole range of everyday life activities. Conventional and long-established methods for the rehabilitation of neglect like visual scanning training, optokinetic stimulation, or limb activation training have produced positive results, with varying degrees of generalization to (un)trained tasks, lasting from several minutes up to various months after training. Nevertheless, some promising novel approaches to the remediation of left visuospatial neglect have emerged in the last decade. These new therapy methods can be broadly classified into four categories. First, non-invasive brain stimulation techniques by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), after a period of mainly diagnostic utilization, are increasingly applied as neurorehabilitative tools. Second, two classes of drugs, dopaminergic and noradrenergic, have been investigated for their potential effectiveness in rehabilitating neglect. Third, prism adaptation treatment has been shown to improve several neglect symptoms consistently, sometimes during longer periods of time. Finally, virtual reality technologies hold new opportunities for the development of effective training techniques for neglect. They provide realistic, rich, and highly controllable training environments. In this paper the degree of effectiveness and the evidence gathered to support the therapeutic claims of these new approaches is reviewed and discussed. The conclusion is that for all these approaches there still is insufficient unbiased evidence to support their effectiveness. Further neglect rehabilitation research should focus on the maintenance of therapy results over time, on a more functional evaluation of treatment effects, on the design and execution of true replication studies and on the exploration of optimal combinations of treatments.

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 6 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 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 283 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 16%
Student > Bachelor 42 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 13%
Researcher 36 12%
Professor 20 7%
Other 59 20%
Unknown 55 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 70 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 16%
Neuroscience 36 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 9%
Computer Science 12 4%
Other 32 11%
Unknown 74 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,174,425
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,833
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,690
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#372
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
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 293,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.