Outcomes and Optimization of Two Reading Training Protocols for Individuals with Homonymous Visual Field Defects
Tol, S.; Heutink, J.; Veldman, E. J.; Koopman, J.; Vermeer, J. M.; Buijnink, V.; de Haan, G. A.
Show abstract
Individuals with Homonymous Visual Field Defects (HVFDs) after brain injury often experience difficulty in reading. This can be debilitating, as reading is an important aspect of daily life. The current study aims to explore the potential outcomes of two reading trainings for individuals with HVFDs. One training, the Vistra reading training, aims at compensating for the HVFD by practicing adjusted reading eye movements. The second training is the Rotated Reading training, which aims to utilize the intact visual field by practicing to read rotated text in a personalized angle. Next to assessing the potential outcomes of the Vistra and Rotated Reading trainings on a group and individual level, this study aims to investigate patient experiences with the trainings. Using a Partially Randomized Patient Preferred Controlled Trial, participants were assigned to one of three groups: Vistra, Rotated Reading or a waiting list control group. There were 5 participants included in both the Vistra and Rotated Reading groups, and 10 in the control group. Assessments were conducted before(T1), after(T2) and 3 months after(T3) training or the waiting period, including reading speed, self-reported reading efficacy, attitude, skills, and objects, and quality of life. Results showed significant group-level improvements following Vistra training on reading speed, self-reported reading skills and reading objects. Furthermore, within some Vistra participants, significant individual changes were observed on reading speed, self-reported reading efficacy, reading objects and quality of life. No significant group effects were found for Rotated Reading training, but some individuals demonstrated significant individual changes on self-reported reading efficacy and reading skills. Qualitative analysis identified five key themes of reading training outcome: reading objects, reading skills, reading enjoyment, reading certainty and non-reading related outcomes. Participants reported adopting specific reading strategies and emphasized perceived improvement as a key motivator for continued use. Feedback highlighted the wish for personalized training approaches.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- How can instructions and feedback with external focus be shaped to enhance motor learning in children? A systematic review 94%
- Impact of visual impairment on balance and visual processing functions in students with special educational needs 94%
- Self-Rehabilitation Strategy for Rural Community-dwelling Stroke Survivors in a Lower-Middle Income Country: A Delphi Study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation on the Effectiveness on the Implementation of WHO-CST Programme in Hong Kong: A RCT Protocol 92%
- Translation, adaptation, and measurement properties of the Muscle-Strengthening Exercise Questionnaire among university students in Indonesia 91%
- The Basel Long COVID Cohort Study (BALCoS): protocol of a prospective cohort study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Current Practice and Challenges in Screening for Visual Perception Deficits after Stroke: a Qualitative Study 93%
- A mapping review of good practices of participatory research for an impactful collaboration in disabilities studies 92%
- Physiotherapists’ use of aerobic exercise during stroke rehabilitation: a qualitative study using chart-stimulated recall 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Novel prefrontal synthesis intervention improves language in children with autism 92%
- Hemispheric lateralization in older adults who habitually play darts: a cross-sectional study using functional near-infrared spectroscopy 90%
- Eye-tracking for low vision with virtual reality (VR): testing status quo usability of the HTC Vive Pro Eye 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.