Spatial inattention (also known as spatial neglect, hemi-neglect) is a cognitive deficit typically characterised by the inability to attend to stimuli and environment on the contralesional side of space (Li & Malhotra, 2015). It typically occurs following lesions in the right hemisphere resulting in left-sided impairments (Li & Malhotra, 2015). Spatial inattention is not rare, affecting approximately one in three of the 16.9 million people who experience a stroke each year worldwide (Béjot et al., 2015). The condition can drastically impact individuals’ lives and is one of the most severe and long-lasting conditions post-stroke (Hammerbeck et al., 2019). Everyday activities can be affected in numerous ways, such as only being able to eat food from the ipsilesional side of the plate, bumping into objects in the contralesional side of space (Gammeri et al., 2020), and an increase in safety issues (e.g., increased risk of falls; Chen et al., 2016). Furthermore, spatial inattention is a significant predictor of poor functional recovery and is associated with poorer rehabilitation outcomes (Chen et al., 2016; Di Monaco et al., 2011), longer hospital stays (Chen et al., 2016), and long-term disabilities in the activities of daily living (Nijboer et al., 2013). Moreover, common co-morbid conditions such as anosognosia (lack of awareness and denial of one’s deficit) further exacerbate the condition and impair recovery (Hammerbeck et al., 2019). A significant amount of research has been dedicated to developing cognitive rehabilitation for spatial inattention. There are two approaches to cognitive rehabilitation — the restitutive approach and the compensatory approach. The restitutive approach aims to address the underlying cognitive impairment, whereas the compensatory approach aims to teach behavioural adjustments strategies (Bowen et al., 2013). Interventions can be further categorised as involving top-down or bottom-up processing (Parton et al., 2004). Interventions that utilise top-down processing require one’s awareness of spatial inattention behaviours and focus on training voluntary compensation for those behaviours (Azouvi et al., 2017; Bowen et al., 2013). An example of a top-down intervention is Visual Scanning Training (VST) during which gaze direction is reinforced when using contralesional anchor cues to improve the voluntary orientation of attention towards the impaired side (Luauté et al., 2006). Interventions that utilise bottom-up processing, on the other hand, do not require one’s awareness, and instead aim to alter the underlying mechanism that leads to spatial inattention (Bowen et al., 2013). For example, Prism Adaptation aims to modify the impaired representation of space by using prismatic goggles that produce an ipsilesional lateral shift of the visual field (Brink et al., 2017). There has been extensive research into the effectiveness of these interventions to improve spatial inattention. However, notwithstanding that many interventions for spatial inattention exist, the latest Cochrane review could not establish their effectiveness in improving functional outcomes in activities of daily living, and in increasing independence (Longley et al., 2021). Furthermore, there is currently insufficient definitive (phase 3) evidence to make conclusions about effectiveness of a specific intervention (Longley et al., 2021), and thus further well-designed trials are required. Smooth Pursuit Training (SPT) appears to be a promising restorative intervention for spatial inattention (Kerkhoff et al., 2013, 2014). During SPT, optokinetic stimulation is used to train eye movements (without head movements) in following computerised visual stimuli moving at different speeds, from the ipsilesional to the contralesional side (Kerkhoff et al., 2013). SPT utilises bottom-up processing and therefore does not require one’s awareness of the deficit. In two elegant randomised controlled trials, SPT was shown to significantly reduce mild and severe spatial inattention with effects extending to the auditory domain (Kerkhoff et al., 2013, 2014). Specifically, Kerkhoff et al. (2013) compared the effects of SPT and VST on visual and auditory inattention in chronic stroke survivors. The groups received 1-hour treatment sessions for 5 days (totalling 5 hours). Significant and lasting improvements in digit cancellation, visuoperceptual and motor line bisection, paragraph reading, and auditory midline test were observed in the SPT group. In the subsequent study, Kerkhoff et al. (2014) compared the effects of SPT and VST on visual inattention at 1-month post-stroke. In both treatment groups, participants received 30-minute sessions for 4 weeks at their bedside. Outcome measures included Functional Neglect Index (FNI; included finding objects on a tray, stick bisection, picture search, and gaze orientation), Unawareness and Behavioural Neglect Index (UBNI; included six items about unawareness and four about neglect in activities of daily living), the Help index (measuring required assistance in 10 functional activities), and the Barthel Index. Although significant improvements were found for several measures in VST and SPT, the authors observed significantly greater improvements for the SPT group in the FNI and UBNI. In addition, there were continued improvements selectively in the SPT group only 2 weeks later and SPT was further found to significantly reduce anosognosia. Nevertheless, the SPT sessions were relatively long (30-60 minutes per session) which can be difficult for some stroke survivors due to fatigue, and other factors leading to disengagement. Issues of boredom and disengagement are common in stroke units and must be considered when designing interventions because these factors have been shown to negatively impact functional and psychological outcomes (Ameer & Ali, 2017). Furthermore, SPT sessions required high level involvement from a therapist due to the need for continuous observation of eye movements to ensure correct execution of smooth pursuit eye movements without head movements. Such time-intensive interactions with the therapist cannot be accessed by some as it is resource-intensive. One promising avenue to overcome these issues and maximise the potential of SPT is to use technology. Adopting the digital therapeutics approach for rehabilitation involves providing patients with evidence-based interventions in different forms such as via mobile and tablet applications, online platforms, and virtual reality training (Choi et al., 2019). These have the potential to improve access to rehabilitation and thus improve equity, as well as reduce costs associated with providing rehabilitation programmes (Laver et al., 2020). Furthermore, utilising technology allows individuals to be more active in managing their own health, and therefore help transition from the clinic to their home (Choi et al., 2019). However, there is a limited choice for individuals with spatial inattention. Indeed, a recent systematic review looking at mobile applications for stroke survivors identified only one app for visual inattention (Piran et al., 2019) but, unfortunately, there is no evidence regarding its efficacy. Therefore, our group (in collaboration with Animorph co-op) has developed the EyeFocus app to address the unmet need for mobile inattention rehabilitation. EyeFocus employs an evidence-based SPT approach (adapted from Kerkhof et al., 2013; 2014) and has been developed with end-users (brain injury survivors, carers, and clinicians). This app has been designed to deliver personalised self-administered SPT in stroke survivors with spatial inattention. The app runs on tablets and uses the latest open-source machine learning algorithms to guide webcam-based eye-tracking during SPT. Here we propose to test the feasibility and efficacy of delivering smooth pursuit eye movement training via EyeFocus in the homes of stroke survivors with spatial inattention.