Is the posner reaction time test more accurate than clinical tests in detecting left neglect in acute and chronic stroke?
- PMID: 19969172
- PMCID: PMC3755360
- DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.07.014
Is the posner reaction time test more accurate than clinical tests in detecting left neglect in acute and chronic stroke?
Abstract
Rengachary J, d'Avossa G, Sapir A, Shulman GL, Corbetta M. Is the Posner Reaction Time Test more accurate than clinical tests in detecting left neglect in acute and chronic stroke?
Objective: To compare the accuracy of common clinical tests for left neglect with that of a computerized reaction time Posner test in a stroke population.
Design: Neglect measures were collected longitudinally in patients with stroke at the acute ( approximately 2wk) and chronic ( approximately 9mo) stages. Identical measures were collected in a healthy control group.
Setting: Inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation.
Participants: Patients with acute stroke (n=59) with left neglect, 30 of whom were tested longitudinally; healthy age-matched controls (n=30).
Interventions: Not applicable.
Main outcome measures: A receiver operating characteristic analysis ranking the measures' sensitivity and specificity using a single summary statistic.
Results: Most clinical tests were adequately accurate at the acute stage, but many were near chance at the chronic stage. The Posner test was the most sensitive test at both stages. The most sensitive variable was the reaction time difference for detecting targets appearing on the left compared with the right side.
Conclusions: Computerized reaction time tests can be used to screen for subtle but potentially clinically relevant left neglect, which may not be detectable by conventional clinical tests, especially at the chronic stage. Such tests may be useful to assess the severity of the patients' deficits and provide more accurate measures of the degree of recovery in clinical trials than established clinical measures.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Acute visual neglect and extinction: distinct functional state of the visuospatial attention system.Brain. 2011 Nov;134(Pt 11):3310-25. doi: 10.1093/brain/awr220. Epub 2011 Sep 23. Brain. 2011. PMID: 21948940
-
Application of immersive virtual reality for assessing chronic neglect in individuals with stroke: the immersive virtual road-crossing task.J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2024 Apr;46(3):254-271. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2024.2329380. Epub 2024 Mar 22. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2024. PMID: 38516790
-
Dual-Task in Large Perceptual Space Reveals Subclinical Hemispatial Neglect.J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2020 Nov;26(10):993-1005. doi: 10.1017/S1355617720000508. Epub 2020 May 27. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2020. PMID: 32456748
-
Adapting the concepts of brain and cognitive reserve to post-stroke cognitive deficits: Implications for understanding neglect.Cortex. 2017 Dec;97:327-338. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.12.006. Epub 2016 Dec 16. Cortex. 2017. PMID: 28049565 Review.
-
Neurobiology of unilateral spatial neglect.Neuroscientist. 2006 Apr;12(2):153-63. doi: 10.1177/1073858405284257. Neuroscientist. 2006. PMID: 16514012 Review.
Cited by
-
Modelling the differential effects of prisms on perception and action in neglect.Exp Brain Res. 2015 Mar;233(3):751-66. doi: 10.1007/s00221-014-4150-3. Epub 2014 Nov 28. Exp Brain Res. 2015. PMID: 25430546
-
Assessment and rehabilitation of neglect using virtual reality: a systematic review.Front Behav Neurosci. 2015 Aug 25;9:226. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00226. eCollection 2015. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015. PMID: 26379519 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Resting interhemispheric functional magnetic resonance imaging connectivity predicts performance after stroke.Ann Neurol. 2010 Mar;67(3):365-75. doi: 10.1002/ana.21905. Ann Neurol. 2010. PMID: 20373348 Free PMC article.
-
Large-scale changes in network interactions as a physiological signature of spatial neglect.Brain. 2014 Dec;137(Pt 12):3267-83. doi: 10.1093/brain/awu297. Epub 2014 Nov 2. Brain. 2014. PMID: 25367028 Free PMC article.
-
Unveiling residual, spontaneous recovery from subtle hemispatial neglect three years after stroke.Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Jul 30;9:413. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00413. eCollection 2015. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015. PMID: 26283942 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Buxbaum LJ, Ferraro MK, Veramonti T, et al. Hemispatial neglect: subtypes, neuroanatomy, and disability. Neurology. 2004;62:749–56. - PubMed
-
- Robertson IH. Do we need the “lateral” in unilateral neglect? Spatially nonselective attention deficits in unilateral neglect and their implications for rehabilitation. NeuroImage. 2001;14:S85–90. - PubMed
-
- Ringman JM, Saver JL, Woolson RF, Clarke WR, Adams HP. Frequency, risk factors, anatomy, and course of unilateral neglect in an acute stroke cohort. Neurology. 2004;63:468–74. - PubMed
-
- Pedersen PM, Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Rasschou HO, Olsen TS. Hemineglect in acute stroke--incidence and prognostic implications. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;6:122–7. - PubMed
-
- Weintraub S, Mesulam M. Right cerebral dominance in spatial attention. Arch Neurol. 1987;44:621–5. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical