S. Tol, G. A. de Haan, E. M. J. L. Postuma, J. L. Jansen, J. Heutink
{"title":"同色视野缺损患者的阅读障碍:对已报道干预措施的系统回顾","authors":"S. Tol, G. A. de Haan, E. M. J. L. Postuma, J. L. Jansen, J. Heutink","doi":"10.1007/s11065-024-09636-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Reading difficulties are amongst the most commonly reported problems in individuals with homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs). To be able to provide guidance for healthcare professionals considering offering reading training, researchers in this field and interested individuals with HVFDs, this systematic review aims to (1) provide an overview of the contextual and intervention characteristics of all published HVFD interventions and (2) generate insights into the different reading outcome measures that these studies adopted. A search on PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science was conducted up to February 2, 2023. All intervention studies for HVFD in which reading was measured were included. Data was collected about the intervention type, session duration, number of sessions, the intensity, duration, circumstance of the interventions, country in which the intervention was studied and reading measures. Sixty records are included, describing 70 interventions in total of which 21 are specifically reading interventions. Overall, adjusted saccadic behaviour interventions occur most in the literature. A wide range within all intervention characteristics was observed. Forty-nine records reported task-performance reading measures, and 33 records reported self-reported reading measures. The majority of task-performance measures are based on self-developed paragraph reading tasks with a time-based outcome measure (e.g. words per minute). Future research could benefit from making use of validated reading tests, approaching the measurement of reading mixed-methods and providing participants the possibility to supply outcomes relevant to them.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reading Difficulties in Individuals with Homonymous Visual Field Defects: A Systematic Review of Reported Interventions\",\"authors\":\"S. Tol, G. A. de Haan, E. M. J. L. Postuma, J. L. Jansen, J. Heutink\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11065-024-09636-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Reading difficulties are amongst the most commonly reported problems in individuals with homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs). To be able to provide guidance for healthcare professionals considering offering reading training, researchers in this field and interested individuals with HVFDs, this systematic review aims to (1) provide an overview of the contextual and intervention characteristics of all published HVFD interventions and (2) generate insights into the different reading outcome measures that these studies adopted. A search on PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science was conducted up to February 2, 2023. All intervention studies for HVFD in which reading was measured were included. Data was collected about the intervention type, session duration, number of sessions, the intensity, duration, circumstance of the interventions, country in which the intervention was studied and reading measures. Sixty records are included, describing 70 interventions in total of which 21 are specifically reading interventions. Overall, adjusted saccadic behaviour interventions occur most in the literature. A wide range within all intervention characteristics was observed. Forty-nine records reported task-performance reading measures, and 33 records reported self-reported reading measures. The majority of task-performance measures are based on self-developed paragraph reading tasks with a time-based outcome measure (e.g. words per minute). Future research could benefit from making use of validated reading tests, approaching the measurement of reading mixed-methods and providing participants the possibility to supply outcomes relevant to them.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-024-09636-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-024-09636-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reading Difficulties in Individuals with Homonymous Visual Field Defects: A Systematic Review of Reported Interventions
Reading difficulties are amongst the most commonly reported problems in individuals with homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs). To be able to provide guidance for healthcare professionals considering offering reading training, researchers in this field and interested individuals with HVFDs, this systematic review aims to (1) provide an overview of the contextual and intervention characteristics of all published HVFD interventions and (2) generate insights into the different reading outcome measures that these studies adopted. A search on PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science was conducted up to February 2, 2023. All intervention studies for HVFD in which reading was measured were included. Data was collected about the intervention type, session duration, number of sessions, the intensity, duration, circumstance of the interventions, country in which the intervention was studied and reading measures. Sixty records are included, describing 70 interventions in total of which 21 are specifically reading interventions. Overall, adjusted saccadic behaviour interventions occur most in the literature. A wide range within all intervention characteristics was observed. Forty-nine records reported task-performance reading measures, and 33 records reported self-reported reading measures. The majority of task-performance measures are based on self-developed paragraph reading tasks with a time-based outcome measure (e.g. words per minute). Future research could benefit from making use of validated reading tests, approaching the measurement of reading mixed-methods and providing participants the possibility to supply outcomes relevant to them.
期刊介绍:
Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.