Publications (2)0 Total impact
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A 72-year-old right handed man developed right homonymous hemianopia without macular sparing, left homonymous lower quadranopia with macular sparing, cerebral amblyopia, cerebral achromatopsia, impaired form vision, and mild right hemispatial neglect, after multiple cerebral infarctions, involving bilateral occipital cortices. His intelligence and memory were deteriorated moderately. He failed to notice objects located in the affected visual field, because of his severely impaired visual search. When ordinary lighting was used, he showed severe right-sided omissions on the line cancellation test. However, omissions were less marked under the brighter lighting. By using a modified method of Kerkhoff and Vianen (1994), he was trained to make saccadic eye movements toward affected regions to find a target and to search and point at targets arranged randomly. As the sensitivity for contrast of isoluminante red and green stimuli was preserved well at high spatial frequencies despite the decreaced contrast sensitivity for brightness, we used green targets as the training stimuli. After the training, search field and pointing range that could be covered by the patient increased in size for both green and white targets, and daily activities improved. Moreover, after the training, he no longer showed discrepancy in line cancellation performances between ordinary and brighter lighting conditions. In the follow up period, the search field and the performance on the line cancellation test were maintained, while the performance of pointing targets array declined. The family members complained of mild re-deterioration of daily activities. Then, the training for searching and pointing re-introduced at home. After the training, his pointing performance and daily activities, evaluated by questionnaires to his family members, improved again. In conclusion, it was suggested that disordered visual search after a homonymous field defect can be treated effectively, even if multiple visual dysfunctions were associated.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There was no report which dealt with the relationship between emotional state, degree of defective visual search, severity of hemianopic dyslexia, the episode when the patient became aware of the defect, and unawareness of visual loss in homonymous hemifield. To investigate the relationship between degree of awareness and those factors that might be responsible for the unawareness, including the aspects listed above. Four patients with visual field defects caused by a brain lesion after a stroke was investigated. Self rating of emotional state, search performance for an object among many placed on a table, and for text reading, as well as visual field, visual positive phenomena, and hemispatial neglect were evaluated. Degree of unawareness for field loss was evaluated by modified version of the method of Bisiach et al. (1985). In addition, the episodes when the patient became aware of the defect were asked. In accordance with the previous studies, we found no relationship between the degree of awareness of field defect and anatomic lesions, co-existence of hemispatial neglect, or the degree of awareness of hemiplegia. However, the patient with neglect was unaware of their troubles in vision at all, whereas the patients without neglect were aware of the troubles but misinterpreted them as problems of the eyes including acuity. In accordance with previous studies, co-existence of visual hallucinations or illusions seemed to be associated with awareness of visual field defect. No relationship was found between the degree of awareness of field defect and emotional state, degree of field loss, degree of defective visual search, or severity of hemianopic dyslexia. Their responses to the inquiry about the degree of awareness of field defect were not consistent. Thus, the awareness of the field defect seemed to be difficult to be kept firmly in their mind. On the other hand, the patients could remember the episode when they became aware of the defect for the first time, being able to specify time, place, and situation. Levine (1990) suggested that the sensory loss in this sort of patients was never phenomenally immediate but instead must be discovered by observation and inference. Non-specificity of the lesion, qualitative difference in awareness between the patient with and without hemispatial neglect, association of positive visual phenomena and awareness, fluctuation of awareness, and dependence of awareness on personal experiences found in our patients, can be explained with this 'discovery' hypothesis.