ArticleBrain sciences2026
Augmentative and Alternative Communication as an Ecological Window on Neglect-Related Spatial Asymmetry After Hemorrhagic Stroke: A Longitudinal Case Report.
Article in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesSpatial neglect after stroke may be difficult to characterize in patients with severe motor, cognitive, and communication impairment. Augmentative and alternative communication interfaces require visual scanning and intentional selection and may therefore provide an ecological context in which lateralized visuospatial behavior becomes clinically observable.
methodsA 58-year-old man with a unilateral right-hemisphere hemorrhagic stroke underwent serial assessment at baseline before training, at the end of 24 AAC sessions delivered over 2 months in addition to standard neurorehabilitation, and at 1-month follow-up. Measures included cognitive functioning, behavioral responsiveness, global disability, bedside communication status, and P300 latency. The AAC/eye-tracking intervention also generated process data across 21 analyzable sessions, including calibration quality, free-exploration heatmaps, and performance in the Stars and Bow-Target tasks.
resultsGlobal measures showed modest early improvement followed by stabilization. Cognitive functioning improved from 2 to 3 and remained stable, behavioral responsiveness increased from 7 to 10 and then to 11, bedside communication increased from 7 to 9 and remained stable, and P300 latency decreased from 393 to 350 and then to 351 ms, whereas global disability remained unchanged at 25 throughout. Calibration was at least good in all quadrants and never scored 0. Performance was lower and more unstable in Stars than in Bow-Target. Heatmaps showed rightward clustering, reduced left-sided exploration, and limited whole-screen scanning.
conclusionsAAC/eye-tracking did not provide formal diagnostic proof of neglect, but it supported ecological recognition of a neglect-like lateralized exploratory pattern under less guided conditions.
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.