Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28114892›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2017

Why use a mirror to assess visual pursuit in prolonged disorders of consciousness? Evidence from healthy control participants.

Damian Cruse, Marco Fattizzo, Adrian M Owen, Davinia Fernández-Espejo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Damian CruseSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England. d.cruse@bham.ac.uk.
Marco FattizzoDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, University Hospital of Ghent, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Adrian M OwenThe Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7, Canada.
Davinia Fernández-EspejoSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence of reliable smooth visual pursuit is crucial for both diagnosis and prognosis in prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC). However, a mirror is more likely than an object to elicit evidence of smooth pursuit. Our objective was to identify the physiological and/or cognitive mechanism underlying the mirror benefit.

methodsWe recorded eye-movements while healthy participants simultaneously completed a visual pursuit task and a cognitively demanding two-back task. We manipulated the stimulus to be pursued (two levels: mirror, ball) and the simultaneous cognitive load (pursuit only, pursuit plus two-back task) within subjects.

resultsPursuit of the reflected-own-face in the mirror was associated with briefer fixations that occurred less uniformly across the horizontal plane relative to object pursuit. Secondary task performance did not differ between pursuit stimuli. The secondary task also did not affect eye movement measures, nor did it interact with pursuit stimulus.

conclusionsReflected-own-face pursuit is no less cognitively demanding than object pursuit, but it naturally elicits smoother eye movements (i.e. briefer pauses to fixate). A mirror therefore provides greater sensitivity to detect smooth visual pursuit in PDOC because the naturally smoother eye movements may be identified more confidently by the assessor.

Indexed as

AdultConsciousness DisordersFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleNeurologic ExaminationPursuit, SmoothYoung AdultBrain injuriesConsciousness disordersDiagnosisSmooth pursuit

Identifiers

PMID28114892
PMCPMC5259895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.