Fig 1.
Consort statement flow chart.
Fig 2.
Pictures illustrating different elements of the IH-CST, example for right-sided hemianopia.
(A) Example of exercises aimed at improving awareness of the size and shape of the visual field defect. The patient is asked to focus at a target in front and indicate the borders of the visual field. Accordingly, the visual field is plotted on the wall with stickers or magnets. (B) Pieces of paper with letters M (middle), R (right) and L (left) used to practice the scanning rhythm. First the paper is laying on a table, then it is attached to a wall in front of the patient (C). The same scanning triad is then presented on a large screen (D). The patient sits in front of this screen in a chair with a head rest (E). Numbers are presented one by one in the order of the scanning triad. The patient has to read the numbers out loud and a microphone is used to record responses (F). After each exercise, the reaction times for targets left, middle and right are presented on the screen. The scanning rhythm is systematically practiced with several exercises gradually increasing speed and amplitude of the scanning triad. (G) A corridor filled with obstacles to practice use of the scanning rhythm during walking. This will be succeeded by practice in a range of daily life mobility situations, with increasing complexity and cognitive load, such as walking in busy shopping areas.
Fig 3.
Examples of displays from the dot counting test, parallel search test and serial search test.
Table 1.
Summary of participant characteristics (mean ± SD, range).
Table 2.
Test scores (mean ± SD).
Table 3.
Effect sizes for within-group and between-group comparisons (Cohen’s d [52]) and group*time interactions (dppc2 as described by Morris [51]).
Medium (d > 0.50) or large (d > 0.80) effects printed bold.
Fig 4.
Results of the Tracking Task on T1 and T2 for the training group, waiting list control group and healthy control group (average ± SD).
Fig 5.
Number of contacts and Percentage Preferred Walking Speed in the obstacle course on T1 and T2 for the training group, waiting list control group and healthy control group (average ± SD).
Fig 6.
Questionnaire data on T1 and T2 for the training group and waiting list control group (average ± SD).
Higher scores indicate less difficulties for NEI-VFQ-25 and more difficulties for IMQ and CVD.
Table 4.
Key findings of the study.