4.1 Review

Rehabilitation Approaches to Hemineglect

期刊

NEUROLOGIST
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 185-192

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NRL.0b013e3181942894

关键词

hemineglect; rehabilitation; hemi-inattention; visual scanning therapy; prism adaptation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hemineglect is a difficult neurologic condition to rehabilitate. It arises predominantly from right brain injury, and manifests heterogeneously in clinical deficits such as poor visual exploration to the left, inaccurate assessment of the midpoint of a line, left limb hypokinesis; and anosognosia. Most of the cognitive dysfunction produced by hemineglect is because of an asymmetric distribution of attention, either with respect to extrapersonal space or to an object being viewed. Many treatments draw oil hemineglect theory to attempt to mediate the basic asymmetry of attention. Review Summary: Treatment approaches can be divided into 2 main categories. Extrinsic or top-down approaches require active participation of the patient under the guidance of a therapist. The most common approach of this type is visual scanning therapy in which the patient is continually instructed to move the gaze leftward into the neglected space. Intrinsic or bottom-up approaches manipulate Stimulus characteristics, sensory input, or the brain directly in an attempt to alter the interhemispheral attentional imbalance. Examples of this approach include vestibular stimulation of the left side, sensory activation of the left limb, and transcranial magnetic stimulation of the overactive left hemisphere. Combined approaches such as prism adaptation have also shown good results. Conclusions: Hemineglect is a complicated disorder that poses challenges to treatment. A paucity of clinical trial evidence limits our ability to extrapolate experimental mediation of hemineglect to globally improved functioning. Nonetheless, many treatment approaches appear promising. Underlying neuroscience may help guide future treatment approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据