Non-spatial impairments affect false-positive neglect diagnosis based on cancellation tasks

<p><strong>Objective:</strong></p> <p>To diagnose egocentric neglect after stroke, the spatial bias of performance on cancellation tasks is typically compared to a single cutoff. This standard procedure relies on the assumption that the measurement error of cancellation...

Бүрэн тодорхойлолт

Номзүйн дэлгэрэнгүй
Үндсэн зохиолчид: Huygelier, H, Moore, MJ, Demeyere, N, Gillebert, CR
Формат: Journal article
Хэл сонгох:English
Хэвлэсэн: Cambridge University Press 2020
_version_ 1826304509067919360
author Huygelier, H
Moore, MJ
Demeyere, N
Gillebert, CR
author_facet Huygelier, H
Moore, MJ
Demeyere, N
Gillebert, CR
author_sort Huygelier, H
collection OXFORD
description <p><strong>Objective:</strong></p> <p>To diagnose egocentric neglect after stroke, the spatial bias of performance on cancellation tasks is typically compared to a single cutoff. This standard procedure relies on the assumption that the measurement error of cancellation performance does not depend on non-spatial impairments affecting the total number of cancelled targets. Here we assessed the impact of this assumption on false-positive diagnoses.</p> <p><strong>Method:</strong></p> <p>We estimated false positives by simulating cancellation data using a binomial model. Performance was summarised by the difference in left and right cancelled targets (R-L) and the Centre of Cancellation (CoC). Diagnosis was based on a fixed cutoff versus cutoffs adjusted for the total number of cancelled targets and on single test performance versus unanimous or proportional agreement across multiple tests. Finally, we compared the simulation findings to empirical cancellation data acquired from 651 stroke patients.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong></p> <p>Using a fixed cutoff, the rate of false positives depended on the total number of cancelled targets and ranged from 10% to 30% for R-L scores and from 10% to 90% for CoC scores. The rate of false positives increased even further when diagnosis was based on proportional agreement across multiple tests. Adjusted cutoffs and unanimous agreement across multiple tests were effective at controlling false positives. For empirical data, fixed versus adjusted cutoffs differ in estimation of neglect prevalence by 13%, and this difference was largest for patients with non-spatial impairments.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions:</strong></p> <p>Our findings demonstrate the importance of considering non-spatial impairments when diagnosing neglect based on cancellation performance.</p>
first_indexed 2024-03-07T06:18:53Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:f208ebb3-c46d-4abc-b948-d5714005af0c
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T06:18:53Z
publishDate 2020
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:f208ebb3-c46d-4abc-b948-d5714005af0c2022-03-27T12:00:33ZNon-spatial impairments affect false-positive neglect diagnosis based on cancellation tasksJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:f208ebb3-c46d-4abc-b948-d5714005af0cEnglishSymplectic ElementsCambridge University Press2020Huygelier, HMoore, MJDemeyere, NGillebert, CR<p><strong>Objective:</strong></p> <p>To diagnose egocentric neglect after stroke, the spatial bias of performance on cancellation tasks is typically compared to a single cutoff. This standard procedure relies on the assumption that the measurement error of cancellation performance does not depend on non-spatial impairments affecting the total number of cancelled targets. Here we assessed the impact of this assumption on false-positive diagnoses.</p> <p><strong>Method:</strong></p> <p>We estimated false positives by simulating cancellation data using a binomial model. Performance was summarised by the difference in left and right cancelled targets (R-L) and the Centre of Cancellation (CoC). Diagnosis was based on a fixed cutoff versus cutoffs adjusted for the total number of cancelled targets and on single test performance versus unanimous or proportional agreement across multiple tests. Finally, we compared the simulation findings to empirical cancellation data acquired from 651 stroke patients.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong></p> <p>Using a fixed cutoff, the rate of false positives depended on the total number of cancelled targets and ranged from 10% to 30% for R-L scores and from 10% to 90% for CoC scores. The rate of false positives increased even further when diagnosis was based on proportional agreement across multiple tests. Adjusted cutoffs and unanimous agreement across multiple tests were effective at controlling false positives. For empirical data, fixed versus adjusted cutoffs differ in estimation of neglect prevalence by 13%, and this difference was largest for patients with non-spatial impairments.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions:</strong></p> <p>Our findings demonstrate the importance of considering non-spatial impairments when diagnosing neglect based on cancellation performance.</p>
spellingShingle Huygelier, H
Moore, MJ
Demeyere, N
Gillebert, CR
Non-spatial impairments affect false-positive neglect diagnosis based on cancellation tasks
title Non-spatial impairments affect false-positive neglect diagnosis based on cancellation tasks
title_full Non-spatial impairments affect false-positive neglect diagnosis based on cancellation tasks
title_fullStr Non-spatial impairments affect false-positive neglect diagnosis based on cancellation tasks
title_full_unstemmed Non-spatial impairments affect false-positive neglect diagnosis based on cancellation tasks
title_short Non-spatial impairments affect false-positive neglect diagnosis based on cancellation tasks
title_sort non spatial impairments affect false positive neglect diagnosis based on cancellation tasks
work_keys_str_mv AT huygelierh nonspatialimpairmentsaffectfalsepositiveneglectdiagnosisbasedoncancellationtasks
AT mooremj nonspatialimpairmentsaffectfalsepositiveneglectdiagnosisbasedoncancellationtasks
AT demeyeren nonspatialimpairmentsaffectfalsepositiveneglectdiagnosisbasedoncancellationtasks
AT gillebertcr nonspatialimpairmentsaffectfalsepositiveneglectdiagnosisbasedoncancellationtasks