Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30357899›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2018

Visual training in hemianopia alters neural activity in the absence of behavioural improvement: a pilot study.

Stephanie J Larcombe, Yuliya Kulyomina, Nikoleta Antonova, Sara Ajina, Charlotte J Stagg, Philip L Clatworthy, Holly Bridge

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie J LarcombeOxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Yuliya KulyominaOxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nikoleta AntonovaBristol Medical School: Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sara AjinaOxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Charlotte J StaggOxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Philip L ClatworthyBristol Medical School: Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Holly BridgeOxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8089-6198
Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

John Fell FundMedical Research Council MR/K014382/1National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Capability FundingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustRoyal Society 102584/Z/13/ZRoyal Society through a University Research FellowshipStroke Association Thompson Family Senior Clinical LectureshipThe Wellcome Centre for Integrative NeuroimagingUniversity of Oxford Goodger and Schorstein Scholarship for Postdoctoral Researchers in Medical SciencesWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203139/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDamage to the primary visual cortex (V1) due to stroke often results in permanent loss of sight affecting one side of the visual field (homonymous hemianopia). Some rehabilitation approaches have shown improvement in visual performance in the blind region, but require a significant time investment.

methodsSeven patients with cortical damage performed 400 trials of a motion direction discrimination task daily for 5 days. Three patients received anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) during training, three received sham stimulation and one had no stimulation. Each patient had an assessment of visual performance and a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan before and after training to measure changes in visual performance and cortical activity.

resultsNo patients showed improvement in visual function due to the training protocol, and application of tDCS had no effect on visual performance. However, following training, the neural response in motion area hMT+ to a moving stimulus was altered. When the stimulus was presented to the sighted hemifield, activity decreased in hMT+ of the damaged hemisphere. There was no change in hMT+ response when the stimulus was presented to the impaired hemifield. There was a decrease in activity in the inferior precuneus after training when the stimulus was presented to either the impaired or sighted hemifield. Preliminary analysis of tDCS data suggested that anodal tDCS interacted with the delivered training, modulating the neural response in hMT+ in the healthy side of the brain.

conclusionTraining can affect the neural responses in hMT+ even in the absence of change in visual performance.

Indexed as

AdultBehaviorFemaleHemianopsiaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationPilot ProjectsTranscranial Direct Current StimulationVisual CortexVisual Fieldshemianopiamotion discriminationperceptual learning

Identifiers

PMID30357899
PMCPMC6282990
OpenAlexW2898600636

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.