Citation

Mena-Garcia L, Maldonado-Lopez MJ, Fernández I, Coco-Martin MB, Finat-Saez J, Martinez-Jimenez JL, Pastor-Jimeno JC, Arenillas JF. J. Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2020; 17(1): e12.

Affiliation

Department of Neurology, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group - BMC)

DOI

10.1186/s12984-020-0650-5

PMID

32005265

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need to identify diagnostic parameters that objectively quantify and monitor the effective visual ability of patients with homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs). Visual processing speed (VPS) is an objective measure of visual ability. It is the reaction time (RT) needed to correctly search and/or reach for a visual stimulus. VPS depends on six main brain processing systems: auditory-cognitive, attentional, working memory, visuocognitive, visuomotor, and executive. We designed a new assessment methodology capable of activating these six systems and measuring RTs to determine the VPS of patients with HVFDs.

METHODS: New software was designed for assessing subject visual stimulus search and reach times (S-RT and R-RT respectively), measured in seconds. Thirty-two different everyday visual stimuli were divided in four complexity groups that were presented along 8 radial visual field positions at three different eccentricities (10^o, 20^o, and 30^o). Thus, for each HVFD and control subject, 96 S- and R-RT measures related to VPS were registered. Three additional variables were measured to gather objective data on the validity of the test: eye-hand coordination mistakes (ehcM), eye-hand coordination accuracy (ehcA), and degrees of head movement (dHM, measured by a head-tracker system). HVFD patients and healthy controls (30 each) matched by age and gender were included. Each subject was assessed in a single visit. VPS measurements for HFVD patients and control subjects were compared for the complete test, for each stimulus complexity group, and for each eccentricity.

RESULTS: VPS was significantly slower (p < 0.0001) in the HVFD group for the complete test, each stimulus complexity group, and each eccentricity. For the complete test, the VPS of the HVFD patients was 73.0% slower than controls. They also had 335.6% more ehcMs, 41.3% worse ehcA, and 189.0% more dHMs than the controls.

CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of VPS by this new assessment methodology could be an effective tool for objectively quantifying the visual ability of HVFD patients. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of this novel method for measuring the impact that any specific neurovisual rehabilitation program has for these patients.

Language: en

Keywords

Acquired brain injury; Eye-hand coordination; Hemianopia; Homonymous visual field defects; Neurovisual rehabilitation; Saccadic eye movements; Visual ability; Visual assessment; Visual processing speed