What kind of integration between qualitative and quantitative measures in spatial-deficit recovery? Neuropsychological evidence for the assessment and intervention

Qualitative and quantitative measures to explore the assessment procedures and the intervention strategies for the successive recovery of spatial attentional deficits (such as neglect syndrome) were recollected in the past years within neuropsychological domains. However, whereas the real impact of these two distinct methodologies on the patients’ recovery were largely considered, no specific analysis was conducted to directly compare the long-lasting effects of these methodologies taking into account some subjective and contextual main variables, as well as it was not considered the impact of the integration between the qualitative and quantitative perspective. Firstly, from one side the effective compliance of patients in clinical specific treatments was underestimated or unspecifically considered. From the other side the effective incidence of qualitative (such as psychometric and assessment measures) or the quantitative (such as experimental and behavioural measures) methodology within their ecological context (clinical structure/laboratory setting) was scarcely analyzed. Secondly, a main caveat of the present research domain on spatial deficit recovery was the absence of a systematic survey on the effective applicability of the two measure types in integration each other. Coherence, proficiency and improving of this integrative view, that may include both the clinical and experimental approach, is suggested and discussed at light of the recent introduction of new methodologies. Between the others, brain stimulation (induced mainly by transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS, or direct current stimulation, tDCS) may offer a unique opportunity to directly observe the effect of a joined strategy of assessment and intervention (quali- and quanti-tative) for the health recovery of patients