The meta-analysis conducted by Székely et al. described the lack of beneficial effect of prism adaptation in neglect patients. The authors concluded that the results did “not support the routine use of prism adaptation as a therapy for spatial neglect”. However, a possible nuance to this conclusion could be that the response (or lack thereof) of neglect patients to prism adaptation may actually depend on the connectional anatomy of their lesion. We develop this idea in our commentary, in order to offer a more balanced perspective on the implications of the findings obtained by Székely et al.