Study	Reason for exclusion
Beschin 2005	Not a randomised controlled trial
Carter 1983	No evidence from the paper that the participants had perceptual deficits
Connor 2002	Not a randomised controlled trial
Flynn 2000	Not a randomised controlled trial
Gordon 1985	Not a randomised controlled trial
Lincoln 1997	Not a perceptual intervention
Morioka 2008	The participants had hemiplegia and received "sensory perception" exercises but did not appear to have perceptual problems
Perez 1997	Participants did not have perceptual deficits
Rossi 1990	Participants did not have perceptual problems
Shapovalenko 2008	Not perceptual intervention for patients with perceptual deficits but a broad multifaceted intervention for movement, proprioception and cognitive functions
Shi 1994	No clear evidence that the participants had perceptual deficits nor that the intervention was aimed at perceptual rehabilitation
Towle 1990	Not a randomised controlled trial
Wagenaar 1992	Participants had inattention not perceptual problems and the study design was single case rather than a randomised controlled trial.
Weinberg 1977	Participants had neglect not perceptual problems and were included in Bowen 2007
Weinberg 1979	Unclear whether the participants had neglect or perceptual problems as defined by this review. Previously (for Bowen 2007) unable to obtain clarification from authors on eligibility and to confirm randomisation was used
Weinberg 1982	Unclear whether the participants had neglect or perceptual problems as defined by this review. Previously (for Bowen 2007) unable to obtain clarification from authors on eligibility and to confirm randomisation was used