Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuromodulation. 2012 Feb 29;15(4):367–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00440.x

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Temporal Profile of Visual Field Functional Recovery in Representative Subjects. Comparing HRP assessments at pretest, interim test 1, interim test 2, and at posttest between representative patients from the VRT+active tDCS (patient 1) and VRT+sham tDCS (patient 2) groups. (A) For patient 1, the position of overall visual field border shifted from 3.37° at baseline to 7.17°, 6.76° and 6.92° at interim test 1, interim test 2, and at posttest respectively. Stimulus detection accuracy within the hemianopic field increased from 22.82% at pretest and reaching up to 48.32%, 44.52% and 50.11% at corresponding testing time points. (B) For patient 2, the position of overall visual field border shifted from 1.99° at baseline to 2.49°, 2.54° and 2.89° at interim test 1, interim test 2, and at posttest respectively. The stimulus detection accuracy within the hemianopic field increased from 13.42% at pretest and reaching up to 15.88%, 15.88% and 17.00% at the corresponding testing time points.