4.6 Article

Reperfusion of specific cortical areas is associated with improvement in distinct forms of hemispatial neglect

Journal

CORTEX
Volume 48, Issue 5, Pages 530-539

Publisher

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.01.003

Keywords

Acute stroke; Reperfusion; Hemispatial neglect

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health, NINDS [RO1NS047691]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To test the hypothesis that restoring blood flow to specific right cortical regions in acute stroke results in improvement in distinct forms of hemispatial neglect distinguished by reference frame: viewer-centered versus stimulus-centered neglect. Methods: Twenty five patients with acute right stroke were evaluated at Day 1 and Day 3-5 with a battery of neglect tests and Diffusion- and Perfusion-Weighted MR Imaging. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed Brodmann areas (BAs) where reperfusion predicted degree of improvement in scores on each type of neglect, independently of reperfusion of other areas, total change in the volume of infarct or hypoperfusion, and age. Results: Reperfusion of dorsal frontoparietal cortex (including BAs 40, 46, and 4) independently predicted improvement in viewer-centered neglect, such as detecting stimuli on left in line cancellation and scene copying (r = .951; p < .0001). Reperfusion of a more ventral temporooccipital cortex, including right BAs 37, 38, 21 and 18, independently contributed to improvement in stimulus-centered neglect, such as detecting left gaps in circles (r = .926; p < .0001). Reperfusion of right midfusiform gyrus (temporal occipital cortex), change in total volume of ischemia, change in volume of hypoperfusion and age predicted degree of improvement in reading (reduction in neglect dyslexic errors; r = .915; p < .0001). Results demonstrate that reperfusing specific cortical regions yields improvement in different types of neglect. (C) 2011 Elsevier Srl. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available