Recovery from unilateral neglect after right-hemisphere stroke.

PURPOSE: To show the recovery process for different forms of unilateral neglect (UN)--including personal neglect and neglect of far space--in relationship to impairment, disability, cognition and mood. METHOD: Patients were tested at 2-4 weeks, at 6 months and at 1 year. We used the Behaviour Inattention Test and a test for personal neglect. We also used the NIH Stroke Scale, the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the Mini-Mental State Evaluation and the Geriatric Depression Scale. RESULTS: Peripersonal neglect diminishes within 6 months, but complete recovery occurred in only 13%. The prognosis for personal neglect and neglect of far space is better, with a recovery ratio at 6 months of 52% and 46%, respective. The correlations between UN and FIM are high. A few patients deteriorate in the absence of recurrent stroke. CONCLUSIONS: For clinical purposes, it is practical to postpone UN evaluation until a couple of weeks after a stroke. Many of the patients who then have UN are likely to retain their UN, although many will improve. Patients with UN should receive special attention in the rehabilitation phase, as well as at discharge. One explanation of the worsening of UN seen in some patients, may be continuing cerebral atherosclerosis.

Assessing unilateral neglect: shortcomings of standard test methods.

INTRODUCTION: When investigating the incidence of unilateral neglect in a first-ever stroke population, we found that some patients showed clinical signs of neglect, but managed to pass our tests. The purpose of this paper is to describe the nature of such signs, and analyse why test instruments were insufficiently corresponding to those signs. METHOD: One hundred and thirty-one consecutive patients with first-ever stroke in a community-based sample were evaluated for the presence of unilateral neglect. We used a test battery consisting of tests for visuo-spatial neglect, personal neglect, and anosognosia. Twenty cases of neglect were discovered by standard methods. We asked our collaborators at the wards to report any behavioural abnormality reminiscent of neglect present in patients who had normal test results. Such patients were evaluated clinically. RESULTS: Nine cases with neglect-like symptoms were discovered. Our clinical evaluation of the nine patients indicated several possible explanations for their behavioural abnormalities, including motor neglect, neglect for far extrapersonal space, disturbances of proprioception, and spatial disturbances other than neglect. CONCLUSION: Standard neglect tests do not cover all clinical forms of neglect. It is therefore important not to rely completely on test instruments when diagnosing neglect. More versatile test instruments are desired.