Dynamic assessment of visual neglect: The Mobility Assessment Course as a diagnostic tool
Dynamic assessment of visual neglect: The Mobility Assessment Course as a diagnostic tool
复制标题
视觉忽视的动态评估：作为诊断工具的流动性评估课程
DOI：
10.1080/13803395.2017.1324562
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
T. Nijboer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. F. Ten Brink;J. Visser;T. Nijboer
摘要简介：视觉忽视是中风后常见的疾病，通常通过神经心理学评估进行诊断。然而，纸笔任务具有较低的预测价值，因为它们在复杂的动态情况下（如日常生活活动）缺乏捕捉忽视的灵敏度。本研究的目的是评估的流动性评估课程（MAC），视觉搜索多任务，评估忽视，其与现有的忽视任务的可行性。方法：对住院康复的脑卒中患者和健康对照者在不同走廊进行MAC测试。参与者必须穿过一条走廊，找到并报告24个贴在墙上的目标。此外，形状取消，线平分，和凯瑟琳Bergego量表（CBS），以比较MAC与现有的诊断工具忽视。结果如下：管理MAC是可行的，因为113例患者中有112例完成了MAC，中位持续时间为4.09分钟。根据评估发生的走廊，在88.5-93.3%的评估中，所有目标都可见。遗漏的数量（总的和contralesional）和不对称评分（contralesional-isilesional遗漏）的MAC以及碰撞和纠正，忽视的患者比那些没有忽视。根据所使用的忽视任务，4.0-18.6%的患者没有忽视神经心理任务或CBS表现出忽视的MAC。反之亦然，17.2-29.3%在神经心理评估或CBS中表现出忽视的患者在MAC中没有表现出这种情况。最后，一个中度到强烈的正相关关系被认为是忽视在神经心理评估，CBS和MAC。结论：MAC是一项生态任务，可以收集有关忽视的定量和定性数据。为了以动态的方式评估忽视的存在和忽视的严重程度，MAC可以与神经心理学评估结合使用。
ABSTRACT Introduction: Visual neglect is a frequent disorder following stroke and is often diagnosed by neuropsychological assessment. However, paper-and-pencil tasks have low predictive value as they lack sensitivity to capture neglect in complex, dynamic situations, such as activities of daily living. Aims of the current study were to assess the feasibility of the Mobility Assessment Course (MAC), a visual search multitask, to assess neglect, and its relation with existing neglect tasks. Method: Stroke patients admitted for inpatient rehabilitation and healthy controls were tested with the MAC in different corridors. Participants had to move through a corridor, finding and reporting 24 targets attached to the walls. In addition, the shape cancellation, line bisection, and Catherine Bergego Scale (CBS) were used in order to compare the MAC with existing diagnostic tools for neglect. Results: Administering the MAC was feasible, as 112 of 113 patients completed the MAC with a median duration of 4.09 min. Depending on the corridor where the assessment took place, in 88.5–93.3% of assessments all targets were visible. The number of omissions (total and contralesional) and the asymmetry score (contralesional–ipsilesional omissions) on the MAC as well as collisions and corrections, were higher for patients with neglect than for those without neglect. Depending on the neglect task used, 4.0–18.6% of patients without neglect on neuropsychological tasks or the CBS showed neglect on the MAC. Vice versa, 17.2–29.3% of patients who showed neglect at neuropsychological assessment or the CBS did not do so on the MAC. Finally, a moderate to strong positive relation was seen between neglect at neuropsychological assessment, the CBS, and the MAC. Conclusions: The MAC is an ecological task in which both quantitative and qualitative data on neglect can be collected. In order to assess the presence of neglect and neglect severity in a dynamic way, the MAC could be administered in conjunction with neuropsychological assessment.