Feasibility of a Semi-computerized Line Bisection Test for Unilateral Visual Neglect Assessment

Summary

Background: Commonly used paper-and-pencil based test modalities for assessing the degree of unilateral visual neglect (ULN) in patients with hemispheric cerebral lesions consume human resources with a significant inter and intra-rater variability.

Objective: To explore the feasibility of a semi-computerized electronic-pen based ULN assessment system (e-system) to improve assessment quality without altering the conventional user interface.

Materials and Methods: Thirty cognitively healthy participants (HG) and 11 participants diagnosed with right-hemispheric lesion and unilateral visual neglect (NG) were recruited to evaluate the e-system. Line bisection tests (LBT) were repeatedly conducted twice for the inter-rater and intra-rater (reliability) comparisons. The LBT results were assessed by the e-system and the golden standard methods (manual rater assessment). The percent deviation (%), assessment duration (sec), and number of neglected line (each) were evaluated.

Results: The inter-rater comparisons of the assessed deviation (%) variable showed excellent inter-rater reliabilities (CCCs) ranging from .84 (.59 to .95 (p < .001)) to .99 (.90 to .99 (p < .001)) for HG and NG. The Bland Altman mean difference (B-A) plots with bias (95% LOA (limits of agreement)) showed similar agreements between the e-system and the raters ranging from -.04 % (-2.10 to 1.97) to 1.30 % (-2.23 to 4.84) for HG and NG. The effect sizes (ES), which show similarities between the assessment methods, yielded smaller ranges from .01 to .30 for HG and NG. The reliability (test-retest) comparisons showed similar assessment results between the e-system, rater 1, and rater 2. The manual rater assessment time ranging from 5.85 to 6.00 minutes and inter- and intra-assessment variations were virtually eliminated with the e-system.

Conclusion: The semi-computerized system with the conventional paper-and pencil user-interface showed valid and reliable assessment results. It may be a feasible replacement for the manual rater assessment modality even in a clinical setting.

Citation: Park J, Jee H, Kim C, Kim J, Kim T. Feasibility of a Semi-computerized Line Bisection Test for Unilateral Visual Neglect Assessment. Appl Clin Inform 2015; 6: 400–417

http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2015-01-RA-0002

Keywords

Unilateral visual neglect - line bisection - computer-aided diagnosis

 

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

• References

• 1 de Joode E, van Heugten C, Verhey F, van Boxtel M. Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2010; 24 (08) 701-714.
• 2 Cicerone KD, Langenbahn DM, Braden C, Malec JF, Kalmar K, Fraas M, Felicetti T, Laatsch L, Harley JP, Bergquist T, Azulay J, Cantor J, Ashman T. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 2003 through 2008. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92 (04) 519-530.
• 3 Jee HM. Evolution of exercise rehabilitation. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation 2014; 10 (03) 343.
• 4 Unsworth CA. Cognitive and Perceptual Dysfunction. Philadelphia: F. A: Davis Company; 2007
• 5 Schenkenberg T, Bradford DC, Ajax ET. Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurologic impairment. Neurology 1980; 30 (05) 509-517.
• 6 Ferber S, Karnath HO. How to assess spatial neglect--line bisection or cancellation tasks?. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2001; 23 (05) 599-607.
• 7 Molenberghs P, Sale MV. Testing for spatial neglect with line bisection and target cancellation: are both tasks really unrelated?. PLoS One. 2011; 6 (07) e23017
• 8 Ting DS, Pollock A, Dutton GN, Doubal FN, Thompson M, Dhillon B. Visual neglect following stroke: current concepts and future focus. Surv Ophthalmol 2011; 56 (02) 114-134.
• 9 Erez AB, Katz N, Ring H, Soroker N. Assessment of spatial neglect using computerised feature and conjunction visual search tasks. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2009; 19 (05) 677-695.
• 10 Verdon V, Schwartz S, Lovblad KO, Hauert CA, Vuilleumier P. Neuroanatomy of hemispatial neglect and its functional components: a study using voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping. Brain 2010; 133 (03) 880-894.
• 11 Plummer P, Morris ME, Dunai J. Assessment of unilateral neglect. Phys Ther 2003; 83 (08) 732-740.
• 12 Baheux K, Yoshizawa M, Seki K, Handa Y. Virtual reality pencil and paper tests for neglect: a protocol. Cyberpsychol Behav 2006; 9 (02) 192-195.
• 13 Liang Y, Fairhurst MC, Guest RM, Potter JM. A learning model for the automated assessment of hand-drawn images for visuo-spatial neglect rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2010; 18 (05) 560-570.
• 14 Hannaford S, Gower G, Potter JM, Guest RM, Fairhurst MC. Assessing visual inattention: study of inter-rater reliability. Br. J. Therapy Rehabil 2003; 10 (02) 72-75.
• 15 Stone SP, Wilson B, Wroot A, Halligan PW, Lange LS, Marshall JC, Greenwood RJ. The assessment of visuo-spatial neglect after acute stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1991; 54 (04) 345-350.
• 16 Gauthier L DF, Joanette Y. The Bells Test: A quantitative and qualitative test for visual neglect. Int J Clin Neuropsychol 1989; 11: 49-54.
• 17 Deouell LY, Sacher Y, Soroker N. Assessment of spatial attention after brain damage with a dynamic reaction time test. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2005; 11 (06) 697-707.
• 18 Rolfe MH, Hamm JP, Waldie KE. Differences in paper-and-pencil versus computerized line bisection according to ADHD subtype and hand-use. Brain Cogn 2008; 66 (02) 188-195.
• 19 Ku J, Lee JH, Han K, Kim SI, Kang YJ, Park ES. Validity and reliability of cognitive assessment using virtual environment technology in patients with stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 88 (09) 702-710.
• 20 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174.
• 21 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 8476 307-310.
• 22 McGrath RE, Meyer GJ. When effect sizes disagree: the case of r and d. Psychol Methods 2006; 11 (04) 386-401.
• 23 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988
• 24 Jewell G, McCourt ME. Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia 2000; 38 (01) 93-110.
• 25 Mendez MF, Cherrier MM, Cymerman JS. Hemispatial neglect on visual search tasks in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol 1997; 10 (03) 203-208.
• 26 Lavie N, Robertson IH. The role of perceptual load in neglect: rejection of ipsilesional distractors is facilitated with higher central load. J Cogn Neurosci 2001; 13 (07) 867-876.
• 27 Fordell H, Bodin K, Bucht G, Malm J. A virtual reality test battery for assessment and screening of spatial neglect. Acta Neurol Scand 2011; 123 (03) 167-174.
• 28 Kinsella G, Packer S, Ng K, Olver J, Stark R. Continuing issues in the assessment of neglect. Neuropsychol Rehabil 1995; 5: 239-258.
• 29 Sunderland A, Bowers MP, Sluman SM, Wilcock DJ, Ardron ME. Impaired dexterity of the ipsilateral hand after stroke and the relationship to cognitive deficit. Stroke 1999; 30 (05) 949-955.
• 30 Schaefer SY, Haaland KY, Sainburg RL. Hemispheric specialization and functional impact of ipsilesional deficits in movement coordination and accuracy. Neuropsychologia 2009; 47 (13) 2953-2966.