Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25324739›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2014

Visualizing the blind brain: brain imaging of visual field defects from early recovery to rehabilitation techniques.

Marika Urbanski, Olivier A Coubard, Clémence Bourlon

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04021160 (The Efficacy of Navigated Perilesional Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Post-Stroke Visual Field Defects), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04021160 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

The Efficacy of Navigated Perilesional Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Post-Stroke Visual Field Defects

TypeinterventionalSponsorAin Shams UniversityRan2018 to 2020Enrolled32ConditionsVisual Fields Hemianopsia, Stroke, Ischemic, Stroke HemorrhagicArmsHigh frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), Sham stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Neural Mechanisms of Visual Field Recovery after Perceptual Training in Cortical Blindness.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Light-sensitive brain pathways and aging.Journal of physiological anthropology · 2016
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marika UrbanskiService de Médecine et de Réadaptation Gériatrique et Neurologique, Hôpitaux de Saint-Maurice Saint-Maurice, France ; Inserm, U 1127, ICM FrontLab Paris, France ; CNRS, UMR 7225, ICM FrontLab Paris, France ; Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMRS 1127 Paris, France ; Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle Épinière, ICM FrontLab Paris, France.
Olivier A CoubardThe Neuropsychological Laboratory, CNS-Fed Paris, France ; Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception, UMR 8242 CNRS-Université Paris Descartes Paris, France.
Clémence BourlonService de Médecine et de Réadaptation, Clinique Les Trois Soleils Boissise-le-Roi, France.
Inserm · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual field defects (VFDs) are one of the most common consequences observed after brain injury, especially after a stroke in the posterior cerebral artery territory. Less frequently, tumors, traumatic brain injury, brain surgery or demyelination can also determine various visual disabilities, from a decrease in visual acuity to cerebral blindness. Visual field defects is a factor of bad functional prognosis as it compromises many daily life activities (e.g., obstacle avoidance, driving, and reading) and therefore the patient's quality of life. Spontaneous recovery seems to be limited and restricted to the first 6 months, with the best chance of improvement at 1 month. The possible mechanisms at work could be partly due to cortical reorganization in the visual areas (plasticity) and/or partly to the use of intact alternative visual routes, first identified in animal studies and possibly underlying the phenomenon of blindsight. Despite processes of early recovery, which is rarely complete, and learning of compensatory strategies, the patient's autonomy may still be compromised at more chronic stages. Therefore, various rehabilitation therapies based on neuroanatomical knowledge have been developed to improve VFDs. These use eye-movement training techniques (e.g., visual search, saccadic eye movements), reading training, visual field restitution (the Vision Restoration Therapy, VRT), or perceptual learning. In this review, we will focus on studies of human adults with acquired VFDs, which have used different imaging techniques (Positron Emission Tomography, PET; Diffusion Tensor Imaging, DTI; functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, fMRI; Magneto Encephalography, MEG) or neurostimulation techniques (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, TMS; transcranial Direct Current Stimulation, tDCS) to show brain activations in the course of spontaneous recovery or after specific rehabilitation techniques.

Indexed as

cortical reorganizationneuroimaging studiesplasticityrehabilitationrestorationvisual field defect

Identifiers

PMID25324739
PMCPMC4179723
OpenAlexW1985504542

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.