Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:58:59.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual Neglect in Horizontal and Radial Space: When Left Goes Right, Proximal Goes Distal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2011

David Wilkinson  and
Mohamed Sakel
David Wilkinson*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Kent, United Kingdom
Mohamed Sakel
Affiliation:
East Kent Neuro-Rehabilitation Service, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: David Wilkinson, School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, United Kingdom. E-mail: dtw@kent.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hemi-spatial neglect can manifest in both the horizontal and radial spatial plane. However, debate exists over how closely the two forms of neglect relate. Here we compared the ability of a neglect patient to bisect stimuli in horizontal versus radial orientation. When oriented horizontally, single lines were mis-bisected to the right, yet when surrounded by visual distracters, the lines were mis-bisected to the left. A leftward bias also emerged when horizontally aligned strings of symbols were bisected. Unexpectedly, an analogous pattern of bias appeared when the stimuli were bisected in radial orientation; stimuli that induced a leftward bias now induced a proximal bias, while stimuli that induced a rightward bias induced a distal bias. Spontaneous reversals in radial bias have not been previously reported, and given that they were coupled with the horizontal reversals, suggest that the spatial boundaries of horizontal and radial neglect are strongly constrained by common stimulus configurations. (JINS, 2011, 17, 943–947)

Keywords

IpsilesionalContralesionalAttentionStimulus bisectionPerceptual disorderCerebral hemisphere
Type
Neurobehavioral Grand Rounds
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 17 , Issue 5 , September 2011 , pp. 943 - 947
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barrett, A., Craver-Lemley, C. (2008). Is it what you see, or how you say it? Spatial bias in young and aged subjects. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14, 562–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, G., Nebes, R. (1975). Patterns of hand preference in a student population. Cortex, 11, 230–238.Google Scholar
Butters, C., Rapcsak, S., Watson, R., Heilman, K. (1988). Changes in sensory inattention, directional motor neglect and “release” of the fixation reflex following a unilateral frontal lesion: A case report. Neuropsychologia, 26, 533–545.Google Scholar
Corbetta, M., Shulman, G. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coslett, B., Schwartz, M., Goldberg, G., Hass, D., Perkins, J. (1993). Multi-modal hemispatial deficits after left hemisphere stroke. Brain, 116, 527–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geldmacher, D., Heilman, K. (1994). Visual field influence on radial line bisection. Brain & Cognition, 26, 65–72.Google Scholar
Halligan, P., Manning, L., Marshall, J. (1991). Hemispheric activation vs. spatio-motor cueing in visual neglect: a case study. Neuropsychologia, 29, 165–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halligan, P., Marshall, J. (1993). The bisection of horizontal and radial lines: A case study of normal controls and ten patients with left visuospatial neglect. International Journal of Neuroscience, 70, 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, K., Chatterjee, A., Doty, L. (1995). Hemispheric asymmetries of near-far spatial attention. Neuropsychology, 9, 58–61.Google Scholar
Humphreys, G., Riddoch, J. (1995). Separate Coding of space within and between perceptual objects: Evidence from unilateral neglect. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. (1993). Orientational bias model of unilateral neglect: Evidence from attentional gradients within hemispace. In I. H. Robertson & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: clinical and experimental studies (pp. 63–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kwon, S., Heilman, K. (1991). Ipsilateral neglect in a patient following a unilateral lesion. Neurology, 41, 2001–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Wertman, E., Heilman, K. (1992). Neglect of peripersonal space. Evidence for multi-directional attentional systems in humans. Brain, 115, 37–50.Google Scholar
Monagan, P., Shillcock, R. (1998). The cross-over effect in unilateral neglect. Modelling detailed data in the line bisection task. Brain, 121, 3081–3083.Google Scholar
Na, D.L., Adair, J.C., Choi, S.H., Seo, D.W., Kang, Y., Heilman, K.M. (2000). Ipsilesional versus contralesional neglect depends on attentional demands. Cortex, 36, 455–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Previc, F. (1990). Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 519–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddoch, J., Humphreys, G., Luckhurst, L., Burroughs, E., Bateman, A. (1995). “Paradoxical neglect”: spatial representations, hemisphere-specific activation, and spatial cueing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 569–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, P., Bowers, D., Heilman, K. (1990). Peripersonal and vertical neglect. Brain, 113, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varnava, A., McCarthy, M., Beaumont, J. (2002). Line bisection in normal adults: direction of attentional bias in near and far space. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1372–1378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, B., Cockburn, J., Halligan, P. (1987). Behavioural inattention Test. London: Pearson Assessment.Google Scholar