↓ Skip to main content

A study on the natural history of scanning behaviour in patients with visual field defects after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A study on the natural history of scanning behaviour in patients with visual field defects after stroke
Published in
BMC Neurology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12883-015-0321-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Loetscher, Celia Chen, Sophie Wignall, Andreas Bulling, Sabrina Hoppe, Owen Churches, Nicole A Thomas, Michael E R Nicholls, Andrew Lee

Abstract

A visual field defect (VFD) is a common consequence of stroke with a detrimental effect upon the survivors' functional ability and quality of life. The identification of effective treatments for VFD is a key priority relating to life post-stroke. Understanding the natural evolution of scanning compensation over time may have important ramifications for the development of efficacious therapies. The study aims to unravel the natural history of visual scanning behaviour in patients with VFD. The assessment of scanning patterns in the acute to chronic stages of stroke will reveal who does and does not learn to compensate for vision loss. Eye-tracking glasses are used to delineate eye movements in a cohort of 100 stroke patients immediately after stroke, and additionally at 6 and 12 months post-stroke. The longitudinal study will assess eye movements in static (sitting) and dynamic (walking) conditions. The primary outcome constitutes the change of lateral eye movements from the acute to chronic stages of stroke. Secondary outcomes include changes of lateral eye movements over time as a function of subgroup characteristics, such as side of VFD, stroke location, stroke severity and cognitive functioning. The longitudinal comparison of patients who do and do not learn compensatory scanning techniques may reveal important prognostic markers of natural recovery. Importantly, it may also help to determine the most effective treatment window for visual rehabilitation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Psychology 11 12%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Computer Science 6 7%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 30 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,407,102
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,889
of 2,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,301
of 265,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#37
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.