Pseudoneglect and the cross-over effect

Several studies have found that patients with left hemi-neglect bisect long lines too far to the right, but bisect short lines too far to the left (the 'cross-over' effect). Some studies have reported that normal participants bisect long lines too far to the left, presumably reflecting an over-estimation of the left side due to the role of the right hemisphere in attention. The purpose of the present series of studies was to further study the cross-over effect in normal participants and to determine whether it may be due to perceptual or motor factors. Participants in the first study showed no cross-over effect on either the traditional line bisection task, or on the purely perceptual Landmark task. However, improvements in the Landmark task in Study 2 did lead to a significant cross-over effect. In Study 3 there was no cross-over on the traditional line bisection task even after changes were made to eliminate the 'ceiling effect' that is usually found with very short lines. Overall, the results suggest that normal participants do show a cross-over effect on a purely perceptual task, but not on the traditional manual line bisection task that includes a motor component. Possible implications for models of right hemispheric involvement in attention are discussed.

[1]  Y Tsal,et al.  Inattention magnifies perceived length: the attentional receptive field hypothesis. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  R. Shillcock,et al.  The cross-over effect in unilateral neglect. Modelling detailed data in the line-bisection task. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[3]  K. Luh Line bisection and perceptual asymmetries in normal individuals: What you see is not what you get. , 1995 .

[4]  A. Milner,et al.  Residual perceptual distortion in recovered hemispatial neglect , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  K M Heilman,et al.  Mechanisms underlying the unilateral neglect syndrome. , 1977, Advances in neurology.

[6]  J. Marshall,et al.  Individual variation in line bisection: A study of normal subjects with application to the interpretation of visual neglect , 1990, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  S. Black,et al.  Brain-behavior correlations in hemispatial neglect using CT and SPECT , 1998, Neurology.

[8]  Dissociated neglect for objective and subjective sizes , 1997, Journal of Neurology.

[9]  A. Milner,et al.  Line bisection errors in visual neglect: Misguided action or size distortion? , 1993, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  J. Marshall,et al.  Line bisection in a case of visual neglect: Psychophysical studies with implications for theory , 1990 .

[11]  M. Mesulam A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect , 1981, Annals of neurology.

[12]  B. Anderson,et al.  A mathematical model of line bisection behaviour in neglect. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[13]  Ernst Pöppel,et al.  Compression and lateral shift of mental coordinate systems in a line bisection task , 1988, Neuropsychologia.

[14]  H. Buchtel,et al.  Tactile rod bisection: Hemispheric activation and sex differences , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[15]  M. Moscovitch,et al.  Hemispheric control of spatial attention , 1990, Brain and Cognition.

[16]  S. Black,et al.  The Sunnybrook Stroke Study: a prospective study of depressive symptoms and functional outcome. , 1998, Stroke.

[17]  M. McCourt,et al.  Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: Psychophysical and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[18]  M. L. Rusconi,et al.  Perceptual and premotor factors of unilateral neglect , 1990, Neurology.

[19]  B Anderson,et al.  Pieces of the true crossover effect in neglect , 1997, Neurology.

[20]  R. C. Roberts,et al.  Differential Effects of Line Length on Bisection Judgements in Hemispatial Neglect , 1995, Cortex.

[21]  F. J. Friedrich,et al.  Effects of parietal injury on covert orienting of attention , 1984, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[22]  A Chatterjee,et al.  Cross-over, completion and confabulation in unilateral spatial neglect. , 1995, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[23]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  J. Marshall,et al.  Line Bisection in Visuo-Spatial Neglect: Disproof of a Conjecture , 1989, Cortex.

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

[26]  John C. Marshall,et al.  How Long is a Piece of String? A Study of Line Bisection in a Case of Visual Neglect , 1988, Cortex.

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

[28]  W Prinzmetal,et al.  The Effect of Attention on Phenomenal Length , 1997, Perception.

[29]  Marcel Kinsbourne,et al.  Hemispheric disconnection and cerebral function , 1974 .

[30]  J W Krakauer,et al.  Stimulus context in hemineglect. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[32]  O. Turnbull,et al.  Motor and perceptual factors in pseudoneglect , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  M. McCourt,et al.  Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[34]  E. Renzi Disorders of space exploration and cognition , 1982 .

[35]  J. Bradshaw,et al.  Bisecting rods and lines: Effects of horizontal and vertical posture on left-side underestimation by normal subjects , 1985, Neuropsychologia.

[36]  Duk L. Na,et al.  Analysis of Primary and Secondary Influences on Spatial Neglect , 1998, Brain and Cognition.

[37]  G. Dellatolas,et al.  Visual and motor components in simple line bisection: an investigation in normal adults. , 1996, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[38]  Gail Kuslansky,et al.  Hand preference and performance effects on line bisection , 1987, Neuropsychologia.

[39]  A. Milner,et al.  Distortion of size perception in visuospatial neglect , 1995, Current Biology.

[40]  M. Harvey,et al.  Effects of visible and invisible cueing procedures on perceptual judgments in young and elderly subjects , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[41]  D L Na,et al.  Dissociation of sensory-attentional from motor-intentional neglect , 1998, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[42]  Roberto Cubelli,et al.  Selective spatial attention and length representation in normal subjects and in patients with unilateral spatial neglect , 1989, Brain and Cognition.

[43]  M. Mozer,et al.  The End of the Line for a Brain-Damaged Model of Unilateral Neglect , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[44]  Mark E. McCourt,et al.  Visuospatial attention in line bisection: stimulusmodulation of pseudoneglect , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[45]  K. Seki,et al.  Unassociated responses to two related task demands: a negative factor for improvement of unilateral spatial neglect , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[46]  Anjan Chatterjee,et al.  Psychophysical constraints on behavior in unilateral spatial neglect , 1994 .

[47]  R. Tegnér,et al.  The influence of stimulus properties on visual neglect. , 1991, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.