Task- and Response Related Dissociations between Neglect in Near and Far Space: A Morphometric Case Study

Introduction: Patients with unilateral neglect may show line bisection errors selectively in either near (within hand reaching) or far (beyond hand reaching) space which suggests that these two spatial areas are coded differently by the brain. This exploratory study investigated, whether any difference in performance between these spatial domains might be task-independent or modulated by the requirement for a motor response. Methods: A 31-year-old right brain damaged patient (MF) and a group of age matched healthy controls were assessed with two serial visual search tasks and a Landmark paradigm. Both types of task required either a directional (pointing) or non-directional (button press) motor response. Participants were assessed with both task types and response modes in near (57 cm) and far space (114 cm). Results: MF showed left neglect during visual search only in far space for the perceptual condition and in near space for the motor condition. MF showed no neglect in both versions of the Landmark task irrespective of spatial distance. A voxel-based morphometric assessment of MF's brain lesion showed marked damage in the right ventro-temporal cortex, superior temporal gyrus, insula, inferior frontal gyrus, angular gyrus and bilaterally in the posterior cingulate cortex. Conclusions: Our preliminary findings suggest that processing of far space during visual search is associated with ventral stream damage but only when space is coded through visual information. Neglect involving directional motor activity in near space seems to be associated with damage of structures sharing close connections with the dorsal stream.

[1]  L. Gauthier,et al.  The Bells Test: A quantitative and qualitative test for visual neglect. , 1989 .

[2]  P. Garthwaite,et al.  Investigation of the single case in neuropsychology: confidence limits on the abnormality of test scores and test score differences , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  Beverly C. Butler,et al.  Gradients of detection in neglect: comparison of peripersonal and extrapersonal space , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  R. Payne,et al.  Statistics for the investigation of individual cases. , 1957, Journal of clinical psychology.

[5]  Umberto Sabatini,et al.  Neural bases of personal and extrapersonal neglect in humans. , 2007, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[6]  Stefano Cappa,et al.  Visual Neglect for Far and Near Extra-Personal Space in Humans , 1989, Cortex.

[7]  Maurizio Ferrarin,et al.  Bisecting Lines with Different Tools in Right Brain Damaged Patients: The Role of Action Programming and Sensory Feedback in Modulating Spatial Remapping , 2007, Cortex.

[8]  M. Jeannerod Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect. , 1987 .

[9]  K. Heilman,et al.  Right hemisphere dominance for attention , 1980, Neurology.

[10]  John C. Marshall,et al.  Left Visuo-Spatial Neglect: A Meaningless Entity? , 1992, Cortex.

[11]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Visuomotor cuing through tool use in unilateral visual neglect. , 2004, The Journal of general psychology.

[12]  S. Ferber,et al.  Spatial awareness is a function of the temporal not the posterior parietal lobe , 2001, Nature.

[13]  Tomoaki Terada,et al.  Unilateral spatial neglect due to a haemorrhagic contusion in the right frontal lobe , 1995, Journal of Neurology.

[14]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Cytology and functionally correlated circuits of human posterior cingulate areas , 2006, NeuroImage.

[16]  Nicola Smania,et al.  Coding of Far and Near Space in Neglect Patients , 2001, NeuroImage.

[17]  A. Berti,et al.  When Far Becomes Near: Remapping of Space by Tool Use , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[18]  J. Ferro,et al.  Posterior internal capsule infarction associated with neglect. , 1984, Archives of neurology.

[19]  S C Rao,et al.  Integration of what and where in the primate prefrontal cortex. , 1997, Science.

[20]  A. Milner,et al.  A Revised Method for Analysing Neglect using the Landmark Task , 2004, Cortex.

[21]  R Tissot,et al.  Qualitative analysis of unilateral spatial neglect in relation to laterality of cerebral lesions , 1972, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[22]  B. Laeng,et al.  Multiple Reference Frames in Neglect? An Investigation of the Object-Centred Frame and the Dissociation Between “Near” and “Far” From the Body by Use of a mirror , 2002, Cortex.

[23]  Chris Rorden,et al.  The anatomy of spatial neglect based on voxelwise statistical analysis: a study of 140 patients. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[24]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Deficits in attention and movement following the removal of postarcuate (area 6) and prearcuate (area 8) cortex in macaque monkeys. , 1983, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[25]  C. Gross,et al.  Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. , 1994, Science.

[26]  J. Marshall,et al.  Within- and Between-Task Dissociations in Visuo-Spatial Neglect: A Case Study , 1995, Cortex.

[27]  A. Cowey,et al.  Left visuo-spatial neglect can be worse in far than in near space , 1994, Neuropsychologia.

[28]  K. Heilman,et al.  Neglect of near peripersonal space. Evidence for multidirectional attentional systems in humans. , 1992, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[29]  K M Heilman,et al.  Peripersonal and vertical neglect. , 1990, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[30]  T Landis,et al.  So near yet so far: Neglect in far or near space depends on tool use , 2001, Annals of neurology.

[31]  S. Ferber,et al.  Revisiting unilateral neglect , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[32]  C. Kennard,et al.  Distractor-dependent frontal neglect , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[34]  F. Previc The neuropsychology of 3-D space. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[35]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Coding of peripersonal space in inferior premotor cortex (area F4). , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[36]  S. Kinomura,et al.  PET study of pointing with visual feedback of moving hands. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[37]  Alan Cowey,et al.  Spatial neglect in near and far space investigated by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. , 2002, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[38]  E. Miller,et al.  Memory fields of neurons in the primate prefrontal cortex. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Functional anatomy of pointing and grasping in humans. , 1996, Cerebral cortex.

[40]  H. Karnath,et al.  Disturbed line bisection is associated with posterior brain lesions , 2006, Brain Research.

[41]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .

[42]  Todd B. Parrish,et al.  The posterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex mediate the anticipatory allocation of spatial attention , 2003, NeuroImage.

[43]  F. Tomaiuolo,et al.  The anatomy of neglect without hemianopia: a key role for parietal–frontal disconnection? , 2003, Neuroreport.

[44]  Pierluigi Zoccolotti,et al.  Influence of the radial and vertical dimensions on lateral neglect , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[45]  Kenneth M Heilman,et al.  Attentional grasp in far extrapersonal space after thalamic infarction , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[46]  M. Goodale,et al.  Two visual systems re-viewed , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[47]  M. Goldberg,et al.  Behavioral enhancement of visual responses in monkey cerebral cortex. II. Modulation in frontal eye fields specifically related to saccades. , 1981, Journal of neurophysiology.

[48]  D. Perrett,et al.  Integration of form and motion in the anterior superior temporal polysensory area (STPa) of the macaque monkey. , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[49]  C. Kennard,et al.  The anatomy of visual neglect. , 2003, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[50]  Gereon R Fink,et al.  Are action and perception in near and far space additive or interactive factors? , 2003, NeuroImage.

[51]  F. Previc Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[52]  I. Keller,et al.  Visuospatial neglect in near and far space: dissociation between line bisection and letter cancellation , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[53]  Driss Boussaoud,et al.  Frontal lobe mechanisms subserving vision-for-action versus vision-for-perception , 1995, Behavioural Brain Research.

[54]  T Landis,et al.  Near and far visual space in unilateral neglect , 1998, Annals of neurology.

[55]  A. Milner,et al.  To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects , 1992, Neuropsychologia.

[56]  J. Binder,et al.  Distinct syndromes of hemineglect. , 1992, Archives of neurology.

[57]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Neural Circuits for Spatial Attention and Unilateral Neglect , 1987 .

[58]  A. Cowey,et al.  No abrupt change in visual hemineglect from near to far space , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[59]  J. Marshall,et al.  Left neglect for near but not far space in man , 1991, Nature.

[60]  Christopher Kennard,et al.  Differential cortical activation during voluntary and reflexive saccades in man , 2003, NeuroImage.

[61]  K. Zilles,et al.  Neural consequences of acting in near versus far space: a physiological basis for clinical dissociations. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[62]  S. Ferber,et al.  Size perception in hemianopia and neglect. , 2001, Brain : a journal of neurology.