Does the Frequency of Contralateral Neglect Vary With the Nature of the Assessment Used?
This review supported the expectation that the reported frequency of contralateral neglect would vary with the nature of the assessment used. The majority of the 30 studies reviewed used a battery of tests of neglect. Hier et al, [45] studying the same group of subjects, reported a rate of 46% from behavioral observations of neglect and 88% from a paper-and-pencil Figure CopyingTest. Another study [35] reported a difference in occurrence of neglect between 2 paper-and-pencil tests, from 49% on a letter cancellation task to 30% on Albert’s Test, another cancellation task that involves canceling lines. The frequency data (reported above and in Table 3) are based on the subtests that detected the highest rate of neglect. The present study’s claim of equivalence in frequency of USN between the RBD and LBD groups in the study of Edmans and Lincoln [5] was based on the highest rate reported on different tests. The findings from the latter study are summarized in Table 4 as an example of how
