RESUMEN
Previous studies indicate that the effect of prism adaptation training (PAT) on unilateral neglect may depend on clinical characteristics. In this explorative work, we re-analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized controlled trial (N = 23) to investigate whether age, etiology, severity of motor impairments, and visual field deficits affect the efficacy of PAT. Additionally, we reviewed PAT studies that reported lesion maps and distinguished responders from non-responders. We transferred these maps into a common standard brain and added data from 12 patients from our study. We found patients suffering from subarachnoid bleeding appeared to show stronger functional recovery than those with intracranial hemorrhage or cortical infarction. Furthermore, patients with visual field deficits and those with more severe contralateral motor impairments had larger after-effect sizes but did not differ in treatment effects. In addition, patients with parietal lesions showed reduced recovery, whereas patients with lesions in the basal ganglia recovered better. We conclude that PAT (in its current form) is effective when fronto-subcortical areas are involved but it may not be the best choice when parietal regions are affected. Overall, the present work adds to the understanding on the effects of clinical characteristics on PAT.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: For a comprehensive specification and quantification of neuropsychological deficits, extensive neuropsychological assessment is needed. Due to its time intensiveness, this cannot be accomplished in every clinical setting and is not always necessary. Therefore, screening instruments provide a first step. Because the selection differs between and sometimes even within clinics, a comparison of results for different screening procedures would be helpful. The current study aimed at achieving this in the German-speaking area, i.e. conversions between sum scores of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Dementia Detection Test (DemTect) can be accomplished. METHOD: In the Department of Neurology at the University Hospital of Cologne, 8240 patients with different neurological diseases were examined between 2008 and 2017. Conversion scores using the results in the MMSE, MoCA and DemTect were computed by using the equipercentile equating method. RESULTS: The calculated bidirectional conversion tables enable a quick and easy comparison between the three most commonly used screening instruments. They are also similar to those from previous studies in English-speaking countries. CONCLUSION: The results enable an enhanced longitudinal assessment of cognitive functions in different clinical settings, provide comparability, and offer more flexibility for determination of patient status. An extension of the current study might be the transfer of the method presented to other cognitive or affective domains, such as memory and depression.