BOOK AND TEST REVIEWS

This delightful but brief text can be read in a few hours and provides absorbing reading for clinical neuropsychologists and rehabilitation therapists involved in brain-injury rehabilitation. It summarizes several important points about the complexity of visuospatial neglect and issues involved in the measurement of this neuropsychological impairment. It also provides a succinct and scholarly review of the various therapies that have been used to “treat” (i.e., remediate) patients with visual neglect. What I found most provocative about this text was the notion that disorders of attention may actually contribute to what appear to be purely sensorimotor disturbances (such as hemiplegia). This type of thinking is fascinating and challenges us to think innovatively about the symptoms that follow brain damage. I highly recommend this text and will personally purchase copies for our postdoctoral fellows in neuropsychology. Two omissions, however, were disappointing. First, I had hoped the authors would present a specific plan for assessing spatial neglect during the early phases after a stroke, but such a plan was not included. Chapter 3 focused mainly on the virtue of the behavioral inattention test. A more systematic analysis of neglect phenomena that emphasizes how to measure the degree of spatial neglect of personal, peripersonal, and extrapersonal space is needed, as is guidance on how to assess related disorders. Second, I was looking for data on the course of the natural recovery of neglect phenomena. Perhaps such data are lacking, but the title of chapter 5 promised a little more than it actually delivered. From my perspective with a long-standing interest in disturbances of self-awareness, the discussion of how to measure awareness of neglect could have been more sophisticated. The technique of having patients judge their functional capabilities and having a relative reliably make the same judgment could have received more emphasis. A scale that therapists could use to evaluate patients also would have been instructive. Finally, the text made a point that could be subject to misinterpretation. The findings of Taub et al. (1993) suggest that restricting the use of the so-called unaffected arm after hemiplegia might facilitate greater recovery of the hemiplegic arm. Given that both sides of the body are often affected even if lesions are unilateral, this finding should be interpreted cautiously (Prigatano & Wong, 1997). Restricting the use of an arm may or may not produce positive outcomes related to overall rehabilitation, and this issue needs to be evaluated more extensively. In conclusion, this brief, excellent text summarizes a considerable amount of information on a complicated topic. It will be extremely useful for clinicians who lack the time to read the important papers in this field but who need a brief digest to help guide their clinical practice.