Neurology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Supplement
Right arrow Correspondence:
Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Correspondence are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schreiber, A.
Right arrow Articles by Schiefer, U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schreiber, A.
Right arrow Articles by Schiefer, U.
NEUROLOGY 2006;67:143-145
© 2006 American Academy of Neurology


Brief Communications

Effect of visual restitution training on absolute homonymous scotomas

A. Schreiber, Dr med, R. Vonthein, Dr rer pol, J. Reinhard, Dr med, S. Trauzettel-Klosinski, Prof Dr med, C. Connert and U. Schiefer, Prof Dr med

From the University Eye Hospital, Department of Pathophysiology of Vision and Neuro-Ophthalmology, Tuebingen, Germany (A.S., J.R., S.T.-K., C.C., U.S.); and University Tuebingen, Department of Medical Biometry (R.V.), Germany.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Ulrich Schiefer, University Eye Hospital, Department of Pathophysiology of Vision, and Neuro-Ophthalmology, Schleichstr. 12-16, 72076 Tübingen, Germany; e-mail: ulrich.schiefer{at}uni-tuebingen.de

The authors examined 16 patients with stable homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs) with static automated perimetry (SAP). Training effect E was defined as difference of the proportions of absolutely defective locations in all test locations, before and after visual restitution training (VRT). E was 0.05 ± 0.05 (mean ± SD). The authors observed a relevant training effect (E ≥ 0.12) in two subjects, but only monocularly. VRT has little effect on absolute HVFDs in SAP.


Additional material related to this article can be found on the Neurology Web site. Go to www.neurology.org and scroll down the Table of Contents for the July 11 issue to find the title link for this article.

A. Schreiber was partially supported by a grant from the Institute of Medical Psychology (B.A. Sabel).

Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Received June 30, 2005. Accepted in final form March 13, 2006.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Arch OphthalmolHome page
A. R. Bowers, K. Keeney, and E. Peli
Community-Based Trial of a Peripheral Prism Visual Field Expansion Device for Hemianopia
Arch Ophthalmol, May 1, 2008; 126(5): 657 - 664.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NeurologyHome page
C. C. Glisson and S. L. Galetta
Visual rehabilitation: Now you see it; now you don't
Neurology, May 29, 2007; 68(22): 1881 - 1882.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.