33 resultados para Visual Impairment
Resumo:
Visual search impairment can occur following stroke. The utility of optimal spectral filters on visual search in stroke patients has not been considered to date. The present study measured the effect of optimal spectral filters on visual search response time and accuracy, using a task requiring serial processing. A stroke and control cohort undertook the task three times: (i) using an optimally selected spectral filter; (ii) the subjects were randomly assigned to two groups with group 1 using an optimal filter for two weeks, whereas group 2 used a grey filter for two weeks; (iii) the groups were crossed over with group 1 using a grey filter for a further two weeks and group 2 given an optimal filter, before undertaking the task for the final time. Initial use of an optimal spectral filter improved visual search response time but not error scores in the stroke cohort. Prolonged use of neither an optimal nor a grey filter improved response time or reduced error scores. In fact, response times increased with the filter, regardless of its type, for stroke and control subjects; this outcome may be due to contrast reduction or a reflection of task design, given that significant practice effects were noted. © 2013 a Pion publication.
Resumo:
The goal of this project was to investigate the neural correlates of reading impairment in dyslexia as hypothesised by the main theories – the phonological deficit, visual magnocellular deficit and cerebellar deficit theories, with emphasis on individual differences. This research took a novel approach by: 1) contrasting the predictions in one sample of participants with dyslexia (DPs); 2) using a multiple-case study (and between-group comparisons) to investigate differences in BOLD between each DP and the controls (CPs); 3) demonstrating a possible relationship between reading impairment and its hypothesised neural correlates by using fMRI and a reading task. The multiple-case study revealed that the neural correlates of reading in dyslexia in all cases are not in agreement with the predictions of a single theory. The results show striking individual differences - even, where the neural correlates of reading in two DPs are consistent with the same theory, the areas can differ. A DP can exhibit under-engagement in an area in word, but not in pseudoword reading and vice versa, demonstrating that underactivation in that area cannot be interpreted as a ‘developmental lesion’. Additional analyses revealed complex results. Within-group analyses between behavioural measures and BOLD showed correlations in the predicted regions, areas outside ROI, and lack of correlations in some predicted areas. Comparisons of subgroups which differed on Orthography Composite supported the MDT, but only for Words. The results suggest that phonological scores are not a sufficient predictor of the under-engagement of phonological areas during reading. DPs and CPs exhibited correlations between Purdue Pegboard Composite and BOLD in cerebellar areas only for Pseudowords. Future research into reading in dyslexia should use a more holistic approach, involving genetic and environmental factors, gene by environment interaction, and comorbidity with other disorders. It is argued that multidisciplinary research, within the multiple-deficit model holds significant promise here.
Resumo:
We tested the hypothesis that the differences in performance between developmental dyslexics and controls on visual tasks are specific for the detection of dynamic stimuli. We found that dyslexics were less sensitive than controls to coherent motion in dynamic random dot displays. However, their sensitivity to control measures of static visual form coherence was not significantly different from that of controls. This dissociation of dyslexics' performance on measures that are suggested to tap the sensitivity of different extrastriate visual areas provides evidence for an impairment specific to the detection of dynamic properties of global stimuli, perhaps resulting from selective deficits in dorsal stream functions. © 2001 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.