Virtual reality tasks with eye tracking for mild spatial neglect assessment: a pilot study with acute stroke patients.

Objective: Increasing evidence shows that traditional neuropsychological tests are insensitive for detecting mild unilateral spatial neglect (USN), lack ecological validity, and are unable to clarify USN in all different spatial domains. Here we present a new, fully immersive virtual reality (VR) task battery with integrated eye tracking for mild visual USN and extinction assessment in the acute state of stroke to overthrow these limitations. Methods: We included 11 right-sided stroke patients and 10 healthy controls aged 18-75 years. Three VR tasks named the Extinction, the Storage and the Shoot the target tasks were developed to assess USN. Furthermore, neuropsychological assessment examining various parts of cognitive functioning was conducted to measure general abilities. We compared VR and neuropsychological task performance in stroke patients - those with (USN+, n = 5) and without USN (USN-, n = 6) - to healthy controls (n = 10) and tentatively reported the usability of VR system in the acute state of stroke. Results: Patients had mostly mild neurological and USN symptoms. Nonetheless, we found several differences between the USN+ and healthy control groups in VR task performance. Compared to controls, USN+ patients showed visual extinction and asymmetry in gaze behavior and detection times in distinct spatial locations. Extinction was most evident in the extrapersonal space and delayed detection times on the extreme left and on the left upper parts. Also, USN+ patients needed more time to complete TMT A compared with USN- patients and TMT B compared with controls. VR system usability and acceptance were rated high; no relevant adverse effects occurred. Conclusion: New VR technology with eye tracking enables ecologically valid and objective assessment methods with various exact measures for mild USN and thus could potentially improve future clinical assessments.

Unilateral Stroke: Computer-based Assessment Uncovers Non-Lateralized and Contralesional Visuoattentive Deficits.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with unilateral stroke commonly show hemispatial neglect or milder contralesional visuoattentive deficits, but spatially non-lateralized visuoattentive deficits have also been reported. The aim of the present study was to compare spatially lateralized (i.e., contralesional) and non-lateralized (i.e., general) visuoattentive deficits in left and right hemisphere stroke patients. METHOD: Participants included 40 patients with chronic unilateral stroke in either the left hemisphere (LH group, n = 20) or the right hemisphere (RH group, n = 20) and 20 healthy controls. To assess the contralesional deficits, we used a traditional paper-and-pencil cancellation task (the Bells Test) and a Lateralized Targets Computer Task. To assess the non-lateralized deficits, we developed a novel large-screen (173 × 277 cm) computer method, the Ball Rain task, with moving visual stimuli and fast-paced requirements for selective attention. RESULTS: There were no contralesional visuoattentive deficits according to the cancellation task. However, in the Lateralized Targets Computer Task, RH patients missed significantly more left-sided than right-sided targets in bilateral trials. This omission distribution differed significantly from those of the controls and LH patients. In the assessment of non-lateralized attention, RH and LH patients missed significantly more Ball Rain targets than controls in both the left and right hemifields. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-based assessment sensitively reveals various aspects of visuoattentive deficits in unilateral stroke. Patients with either right or left hemisphere stroke demonstrate non-lateralized visual inattention. In right hemisphere stroke, these symptoms can be accompanied by subtle contralesional visuoattentive deficits that have remained unnoticed in cancellation task.

Computer-Based Assessment: Dual-Task Outperforms Large-Screen Cancellation Task in Detecting Contralesional Omissions.

Objective: Traditionally, asymmetric spatial processing (i.e., hemispatial neglect) has been assessed with paper-and-pencil tasks, but growing evidence indicates that computer-based methods are a more sensitive assessment modality. It is not known, however, whether simply converting well-established paper-and-pencil methods into a digital format is the best option. The aim of the present study was to compare sensitivity in detecting contralesional omissions of two different computer-based methods: a "digitally converted" cancellation task was compared with a computer-based Visual and Auditory dual-tasking approach, which has already proved to be very sensitive. Methods: Participants included 40 patients with chronic unilateral stroke in either the right hemisphere (RH patients, N = 20) or the left hemisphere (LH patients, N = 20) and 20 age-matched healthy controls. The cancellation task was implemented on a very large format (173 cm × 277 cm) or in a smaller (A4) paper-and-pencil version. The computer-based dual-tasks were implemented on a 15'' monitor and required the detection of unilateral and bilateral briefly presented lateralized targets. Results: Neither version of the cancellation task was able to show spatial bias in RH patients. In contrast, in the Visual dual-task RH patients missed significantly more left-sided targets than controls in both unilateral and bilateral trials. They also missed significantly more left-sided than right-sided targets only in the bilateral trials of the Auditory dual-task. Conclusion: The dual-task setting outperforms the cancellation task approach even when the latter is implemented on a (large) screen. Attentionally demanding methods are useful for revealing mild forms of contralesional visuospatial deficits.

Dual-Task in Large Perceptual Space Reveals Subclinical Hemispatial Neglect.

OBJECTIVE: Both clinically observable and subclinical hemispatial neglect are related to functional disability. The aim of the present study was to examine whether increasing task complexity improves sensitivity in assessment and whether it enables the identification of subclinical neglect. METHOD: We developed and compared two computerized dual-tasks, a simpler and a more complex one, and presented them on a large, 173 × 277 cm screen. Participants in the study included 40 patients with unilateral stroke in either the left hemisphere (LH patient group, n = 20) or the right hemisphere (RH patient group, n = 20) and 20 healthy controls. In addition to the large-screen tasks, all participants underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. The Bells Test was used as a traditional paper-and-pencil cancellation test to assess neglect. RESULTS: RH patients made significantly more left hemifield omission errors than controls in both large-screen tasks. LH patients' omissions did not differ significantly from those of the controls in either large-screen task. No significant group differences were observed in the Bells Test. All groups' reaction times were significantly slower in the more complex large-screen task compared to the simpler one. The more complex large-screen task also produced significantly slower reactions to stimuli in the left than in the right hemifield in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that dual-tasks presented on a large screen sensitively reveal subclinical neglect in stroke. New, sensitive, and ecologically valid methods are needed to evaluate subclinical neglect.