Grech Megan, Stuart Tracey, Williams Lindy, Chen Celia, Loetscher Tobias
School of Psychology, Social Work, and Social Policy, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Guide Dogs SA/NT, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Front Neurol. 2017 Oct 31;8:563. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00563. eCollection 2017.
Spatial neglect after stroke can be a challenging syndrome to diagnose under standard neuropsychological assessment. There is now sufficient evidence that those affected might demonstrate neglect behavior in everyday settings despite showing no signs of neglect during common neglect tasks. This discrepancy is attributed to the simplified and unrealistic nature of common pen and paper based tasks that do not match the demanding, novel, and complex environment of everyday life. As such, increasing task demands under more ecologically valid scenarios has become an important method of increasing test sensitivity. The main aim of the current study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of the Mobility Assessment Course (MAC), an ecological task, for the assessment of neglect. If neglect becomes more apparent under more challenging task demands the MAC could prove to be more diagnostically accurate at detecting neglect than conventional methods, particularly as the time from initial brain damage increases. Data collected by Guide Dogs of SA/NT were retrospectively analyzed. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, a measure of sensitivity and specificity, was used to investigate the diagnostic utility of the MAC and a series of paper and pencil tests in 67 right hemisphere stroke survivors. While the MAC proved to be a more sensitive neglect test (74.2%) when compared to the Star Cancellation (43.3%) and Line Bisection (35.7%) tests, this was at the expense of relatively low specificity. As a result, the ROC curve analysis showed no statistically discernable differences between tasks ( > 0.12), or between subacute and chronic groups for individual tasks ( > 0.45). It is concluded that, while the MAC is an ecologically valid alternative for assessing neglect, regarding its diagnostic accuracy, there is currently not enough evidence to suggest that it is a big step forward in comparison to the accuracy of conventional tests.
中风后的空间忽视在标准神经心理学评估下可能是一种难以诊断的综合征。现在有充分的证据表明,尽管在常见的忽视任务中没有表现出忽视迹象,但受影响的人在日常环境中可能会表现出忽视行为。这种差异归因于基于纸笔的常见任务的简单化和不现实性质,这些任务与日常生活中要求高、新颖且复杂的环境不匹配。因此,在更符合生态效度的场景下增加任务要求已成为提高测试敏感性的重要方法。本研究的主要目的是评估一种生态任务——移动性评估课程(MAC)在评估忽视方面的诊断效用。如果在更具挑战性的任务要求下忽视变得更加明显,那么MAC在检测忽视方面可能比传统方法在诊断上更准确,特别是随着距初始脑损伤时间的增加。对南澳大利亚/北领地导盲犬收集的数据进行了回顾性分析。使用衡量敏感性和特异性的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线来研究MAC以及一系列纸笔测试在67名右半球中风幸存者中的诊断效用。虽然与星形删除测试(43.3%)和直线二等分测试(35.7%)相比,MAC被证明是一种更敏感的忽视测试(74.2%),但其代价是特异性相对较低。结果,ROC曲线分析显示任务之间(>0.12)或单个任务的亚急性和慢性组之间(>0.45)没有统计学上可辨别的差异。得出的结论是,虽然MAC是评估忽视的一种符合生态效度的替代方法,但就其诊断准确性而言,目前没有足够的证据表明与传统测试的准确性相比它有了很大进步。