This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Jobke, S. Articles by Sabel, B. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Jobke, S. Articles by Sabel, B. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Vision Restoration Through Extrastriate Stimulation in Patients With Visual Field Defects: A Double-Blind and Randomized Experimental Study

Institute of Medical Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany, sandra.jobke{at}med.ovgu.de

Erich Kasten, PhD

Institute of Medical Psychology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Luebeck, Germany

Bernhard A. Sabel, PhD

Institute of Medical Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany

Background. Vision restoration therapy (VRT) to treat visual field defects used single-point visual stimulation in areas of residual vision up to now. The question arises if the efficiency of restoration can be increased when the entire region of blindness is trained by a visual stimulus aimed at activating extrastriate pathways (extrastriate VRT). Methods. In this crossover study, 18 patients with visual field defects with prior VRT experience were treated with 2 training paradigms. Group 1 (n = 8) first used extrastriate VRT followed by conventional standard VRT. Group 2 (n = 10) trained in reverse order. Visual field size was assessed with computer-based perimetry and subjective vision with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Results . In group 1, stimulus detection in high-resolution perimetry (HRP) improved by 5.9% (P < .01) after extrastriate VRT. After the second training period (standard VRT), detection further improved by 1.8% (P = .093). In group 2, detection performance improved after standard VRT by 2.9% (P < .05) and after extrastriate VRT by 2.9% (P < .05). Detection performance increased twice as much after extrastriate VRT (4.2%) than after standard VRT (2.4%; P < .05). All changes in fixation performance were unrelated to detection improvements. NEI-VFQ did not show any significant changes. Conclusion. Greater improvement after extrastriate VRT is interpreted as an activation of extrastriate pathways by massive "spiral-like" stimulation. These pathways bypass the damaged visual cortex, stimulating extrastriate cortical regions, and are thought to be involved in blindsight.

Key Words: Vision restoration therapy • Detection performance • High-resolution perimetry • Visual field enlargement • Blindsight

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol. 23, No. 3, 246-255 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1545968308324221


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?