ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology2020
How does the number of targets affect visual search performance in visuospatial neglect?
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computer-based assessment of unilateral spatial neglect: A systematic review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Increased scene complexity during free visual exploration reveals residual unilateral neglect in recovered stroke patients.Neuropsychologia · 2022Article
- Computer-Based Assessment: Dual-Task Outperforms Large-Screen Cancellation Task in Detecting Contralesional Omissions.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImpairments in visual search are a common symptom in visuospatial neglect (VSN). The severity of the lateralized attention bias in visual search tasks can vary depending on the number of distractors: the more distractors, the more targets are missed. However, little is known about how the number of targets affect search performance in VSN. The aim of the current study was to examine the effect of the number of targets on hit rate in VSN.
methodsWe included 23 stroke patients with right-brain damage and VSN, 55 with right-brain damage without VSN, and 49 with left-brain damage without VSN, all admitted for inpatient rehabilitation. In a visual search task, patients had to find and tap targets, presented along with non-targets. The location and number of targets varied from trial to trial, allowing the evaluation of the effects of number and location of targets on hit rate.
resultsVSN patients detected a lower percentage of targets when more targets were present. For patients with right-brain damage without VSN, adding targets only reduced the hit rate of the most contralesional target. No effect of number of targets on hit rate was seen in patients with left-brain damage. Additionally, VSN patients found less contralesional targets than ipsilesional targets, made more delayed revisits, and had an initial rightward bias when compared to the other groups. There were no differences in search time, search consistency, or immediate revisits between groups. There was a moderate positive relation between the hit rate asymmetry score in our search task and conventional paper-and-pencil VSN tasks, and neglect behavior in daily life.
conclusionsIn VSN patients, a higher number of targets reduces the hit rate. The reduced hit rate in visual search evoked by additional targets should be taken into account when assessing visual search in VSN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.