Michiel H G Claessen1, Johanna M A Visser-Meily2, Tobias Meilinger3, Albert Postma4, Nicolien K de Rooij5, Ineke J M van der Ham6. 1. Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; Center of Excellence in Rehabilitation Medicine, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, The Netherlands; Department of Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.h.g.claessen@fsw.leidenuniv.nl. 2. Center of Excellence in Rehabilitation Medicine, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, The Netherlands; Department of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. 5. Center of Excellence in Rehabilitation Medicine, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In a recent systematic review, Claessen and van der Ham (2017) have analyzed the types of navigation impairment in the single-case study literature. Three dissociable types related to landmarks, locations, and paths were identified. This recent model as well as previous models of navigation impairment have never been verified in a systematic manner. The aim of the current study was thus to investigate the prevalence of landmark-based, location-based, and path-based navigation impairment in a large sample of stroke patients. METHOD: Navigation ability of 77 stroke patients in the chronic phase and 60 healthy participants was comprehensively evaluated using the Virtual Tübingen test, which contains twelve subtasks addressing various aspects of knowledge about landmarks, locations, and paths based on a newly learned virtual route. Participants also filled out the Wayfinding Questionnaire to allow for making a distinction between stroke patients with and without significant subjective navigation-related complaints. RESULTS: Analysis of responses on the Wayfinding Questionnaire indicated that 33 of the 77 participating stroke patients had significant navigation-related complaints. An examination of their performance on the Virtual Tübingen test established objective evidence for navigation impairment in 27 patients. Both landmark-based and path-based navigation impairment occurred in isolation, while location-based navigation impairment was only found along with the other two types. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides the first empirical support for the distinction between landmark-based, location-based, and path-based navigation impairment. Future research relying on other assessment instruments of navigation ability might be helpful to further validate this distinction.
OBJECTIVE: In a recent systematic review, Claessen and van der Ham (2017) have analyzed the types of navigation impairment in the single-case study literature. Three dissociable types related to landmarks, locations, and paths were identified. This recent model as well as previous models of navigation impairment have never been verified in a systematic manner. The aim of the current study was thus to investigate the prevalence of landmark-based, location-based, and path-based navigation impairment in a large sample of strokepatients. METHOD: Navigation ability of 77 strokepatients in the chronic phase and 60 healthy participants was comprehensively evaluated using the Virtual Tübingen test, which contains twelve subtasks addressing various aspects of knowledge about landmarks, locations, and paths based on a newly learned virtual route. Participants also filled out the Wayfinding Questionnaire to allow for making a distinction between strokepatients with and without significant subjective navigation-related complaints. RESULTS: Analysis of responses on the Wayfinding Questionnaire indicated that 33 of the 77 participating strokepatients had significant navigation-related complaints. An examination of their performance on the Virtual Tübingen test established objective evidence for navigation impairment in 27 patients. Both landmark-based and path-based navigation impairment occurred in isolation, while location-based navigation impairment was only found along with the other two types. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides the first empirical support for the distinction between landmark-based, location-based, and path-based navigation impairment. Future research relying on other assessment instruments of navigation ability might be helpful to further validate this distinction.