Abstract

PurposeIdentifying factors that affect recovery or restoration of neurological function is a key goal of rehabilitation in neurology and ophthalmology. One such factor can be prolonged mental stress, which may be not only the consequence of nervous system damage but also a major risk factor, or cause, of neural inactivation. Using the visual system as a model of neural injury, we wished to study how patients’ stress and personality profiles correlate with vision recovery as induced by therapy with alternating current stimulation (ACS) in patients with optic nerve damage.MethodsPersonality and stress questionnaires were sent retrospectively to a clinical convenience sample of patients who suffer low vision due to optic nerve damage, which had previously been treated with ACS. The questionnaires included the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), the Trier Inventory of Chronic Stress (TICS), and the Flammer syndrome (FS) checklist, which probes signs of vascular dysregulation (VD). These scores were then correlated with the extent of ACS-induced vision restoration as recorded 1–3 years earlier by perimetric visual field tests.ResultsTwo NEO-FFI personality factors (lower neuroticism, higher conscientiousness) and the presence of physiological Flammer signs were associated with greater recovery as were individual items of the factors openness and agreeableness. Single NEO-FFI item analysis revealed that recovery relates to greater extraversion (optimistic and happy), openness (less guided by authorities for decisions on moral issues), and agreeableness (argue less, like working with others, thoughtful, considerate) as well as the presence of FS signs (cold hands/feet, hypotension, slim body shapes, tinnitus). This suggests that patients with better recovery were more calm, peaceful and secure, hard-working, and reliable, and with high organizational skills. In contrast, patients with poor recovery had a tendency to be emotionally unstable, anxious, unhappy and prone to negative emotions, impulsive, careless, and unorganized. Chronic stress assessed with TICS did not correlate with recovery.ConclusionVision restoration induced by ACS is greater in patients with less stress-prone personality traits and those who show signs of VD. Prospective studies are now needed to determine if personality has (i) a causal influence, i.e., patients with less stress-prone personalities and greater VD signs recover better, and/or (ii) if personality changes are an effect of the treatment, i.e., successful recovery induces personality changes. Though the cause-effect relationship is still open, we nevertheless propose that psychosocial factors and VD contribute to the highly variable outcome of vision restoration treatments in low vision rehabilitation. This has implications for preventive and personalized vision restoration and is of general value for our understanding of outcome variability in neuromodulation and neurological rehabilitation.

Highlights

  • Low vision is one of the most feared diseases of the elderly, affecting more than 250 million people worldwide

  • —as we show here—personality dispositions correlate with vision restoration; namely, those with higher Flammer syndrome (FS) scores, lower neuroticism, and higher conscientiousness had greater recovery while those who chronically worry had less recovery

  • Our findings suggest that while alternating current stimulation (ACS) therapy is useful and the worse eye benefits more, psychosocial factors have a great impact on the magnitude of recovery

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Low vision is one of the most feared diseases of the elderly, affecting more than 250 million people worldwide. Because it is believed that functional impairment is mainly due to cell loss, the ensuing blindness was believed to be irreversible Contrary to this traditional paradigm, there is considerable recovery potential. In a multicenter trial with patients suffering from optic nerve damage, transorbital ACS treatment resulted in 24% recovery of visual fields, measured by super-threshold perimetry. Despite these achievements, there is still considerable variability in outcome: while about one-third of patients do not respond much to vision restoration therapies, others experience moderate or massive improvements [12]. Understanding the source (mechanisms) of this variability will enable us to design new, personalized treatment approaches in the field of regeneration, substitution, and restoration [13, 14]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call