Skip to main content
. 2016 Jun 13;6:27737. doi: 10.1038/srep27737

Table 1. Patients’ demographic and clinical data.

Patients’ neuropsychological assessment E+1 E+2 E+3 E+4 E+5 E−1
Sex F F M M F M
Education 5 13 8 5 8 10
Etiology E I I E I I
Lesion Side LH RH RH RH RH RH
Month from onset 6 2 2 2 2 4
General cognitive impairment  
Visual Field Defect 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0
Hemiplegia (HP) 3 3 3 3 3 3
Hemianaesthesia (HA) 3 3 3 1 3 2
Anosognosia for HP 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anosognosia for HA 0 0 3 / 3 0
Neglect +
Personal Neglect + + +
Somatoparaphrenia

Presence/absence of embodiment (E+/E−) of the experimenter’s arm. Sex: M = Male, F = Female. Education: years of school. Etiology: H = hemorrhage; I = ischemia. Lesion Side: RH = Right Hemisphere; LH = Left Hemisphere. Months from onset: number of months between the onset of the disease and the first assessment. For visual field defect (the two values refer to the upper and lower visual quadrants, respectively), hemiplegia, anosognosia for hemiplegia and hemianesthesia scores were ranged from normal (0) to severe defects (3)48. General cognitive impairment (− = no deficit; + = presence of deficit): MOCA cut off ≥ 14.5/30; MMSE cut off ≥ 24/30. Neglect (− = no deficit; + = presence of deficit;): BIT, conventional subtests cut-off ≥ 129/146; BIT behavioral subtest cut-off ≥ 67/81; DILLER cut-off omissions l–r ≥ 5. Personal neglect (− = no deficit; + = presence of deficit;): FLUFF cut off omissions L ≤ 2. The presence/absence of somatoparaphrenia was evaluated according to Fotopoulou et al.49.