TY - JOUR
T1 - Computer-Based Assessment
T2 - Dual-Task Outperforms Large-Screen Cancellation Task in Detecting Contralesional Omissions
AU - Villarreal, Sanna
AU - Linnavuo, Matti
AU - Sepponen, Raimo
AU - Vuori, Outi
AU - Bonato, Mario
AU - Jokinen, Hanna
AU - Hietanen, Marja
N1 - Funding Information:
SV was supported by the Alfred Kordelin Foundation, Helsinki University Hospital governmental subsidy funding for clinical research, and Oskar Öflunds Stiftelse MB is supported by a STARS grant from UNIPD. The study falls within the scope of the project “Dipartimenti di Eccellenza” funded by MIUR. The University of Helsinki has an agreement regarding open access and will bear the costs.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 Villarreal, Linnavuo, Sepponen, Vuori, Bonato, Jokinen and Hietanen.
PY - 2022/1/7
Y1 - 2022/1/7
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - computer-based methods
KW - dual-task
KW - extinction
KW - hemispatial neglect
KW - neuropsychological evaluation
KW - neuropsychology
KW - paper-and-pencil tasks
KW - stroke
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123199087&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790438
DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790438
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85123199087
SN - 1664-1078
VL - 12
JO - Frontiers in Psychology
JF - Frontiers in Psychology
M1 - 790438
ER -