Influence of the radial and vertical dimensions on lateral neglect

Abstract. The influence of radial (near-far) and vertical (upper-lower) dimensions on lateral visuo-spatial neglect was studied using two horizontal line-bisection tasks (one motor and one perceptual). A group of 15 patients with neglect and a group of 14 right-brain damaged patients without neglect were examined. This latter group was used to define the range of variability in line-bisection performance that was independent of neglect. For the radial dimension, some neglect patients showed greater errors in far space than in near space (for both stimuli presented in the upper and lower space). Fewer patients showed the opposite pattern (i.e., greater errors for near-space stimuli). These near-far asymmetries were present for both the motor and perceptual conditions and showed a good degree of intra-individual consistency. This finding contradicts the hypothesis that the motor component is critical for yielding such asymmetry. For the vertical dimension, the results indicated that neglect patients make more bisection errors for lower-space stimuli than for upper-space stimuli. This vertical asymmetry was nearly always confined to stimuli in near space. Asymmetries along the vertical dimension were present for both perceptual and motor conditions, although intra-individual consistency was low. When perceptual and motor conditions were directly compared, several neglect patients showed greater errors in the perceptual than in the motor task.

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

[2]  A. Milner,et al.  Visuospatial neglect: Veridical coding of size for grasping but not for perception , 1997 .

[3]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  Edoardo Bisiach,et al.  Perceptual and Response Bias in Unilateral Neglect: Two Modified Versions of the Milner Landmark Task , 1998, Brain and Cognition.

[5]  K. Heilman,et al.  Altitudinal neglect , 1988, Neurology.

[6]  D. Spinelli,et al.  Vertical Neglect: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Data , 1997, Cortex.

[7]  Michel Millodot,et al.  Peripheral visual acuity in the vertical plane , 1974 .

[8]  W Skrandies,et al.  Critical flicker fusion and double flash discrimination in different parts of the visual field. , 1985, The International journal of neuroscience.

[9]  Elisabetta Làdavas,et al.  Automatic and voluntary orienting of attention in patients with visual neglect: Horizontal and vertical dimensions , 1994, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  R. Hari,et al.  Stronger occipital cortical activation to lower than upper visual field stimuli Neuromagnetic recordings , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

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

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

[13]  A. Milner,et al.  An Investigation of Hemispatial Neglect Using the Landmark Task , 1995, Brain and Cognition.

[14]  W Skrandies,et al.  Human contrast sensitivity: regional retinal differences. , 1985, Human neurobiology.

[15]  Charles M. Butter,et al.  Altitudinal Neglect Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Case Report , 1989, Cortex.

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

[17]  K. Seki,et al.  What Is Line Bisection in Unilateral Spatial Neglect? Analysis of Perceptual and Motor Aspects in Line Bisection Tasks , 1998, Brain and Cognition.

[18]  Horizontal and Vertical Neglect Dyslexia , 1993, Brain and Language.

[19]  W. H. Payne.  Visual Reaction Times on a Circle about the Fovea , 1967, Science.

[20]  J. Marshall,et al.  Is neglect (only) lateral? A quadrant analysis of line cancellation. , 1989, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

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

[22]  R. Cracco,et al.  Recognition potential: sensitivity to visual field stimulated. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

[24]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Interaction of cognitive and sensorimotor maps of visual space , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[26]  W. Skrandies.  The Upper and Lower Visual Field of Man: Electrophysiological and Functional Differences , 1987 .

[27]  L. Pizzamiglio,et al.  Toward a comprehensive diagnosis of visual-spatial disorders in unilateral brain damaged patients. , 1989 .

[28]  F. Pavani,et al.  Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion? , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[29]  W. R. Brain.  VISUAL DISORIENTATION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO LESIONS OF THE RIGHT CEREBRAL HEMISPHERE , 1941 .

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

[31]  M. B. Bender,et al.  Spatial organization of visual perception following injury to the brain. , 1947, Archives of neurology and psychiatry.

[32]  M. Goodale,et al.  Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand , 1995, Current Biology.

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