Literature DB >> 10702377

Centripetal versus centrifugal bias in visual line bisection: focusing attention on two hypotheses.

M E McCourt1, M Garlinghouse, J Slater.   

Abstract

A variety of stimulus factors have been shown to influence the degree of leftward displacement of perceived line midpoint (i.e., pseudoneglect), which typifies the performance of normal subjects in line bisection tasks [M.E. McCourt & G. Jewell: Neuropsychologia 37, 843-855 (1999); G. Jewell & M.E. McCourt: Neuropsychologia 38, 93-110 (2000)]. One such factor is the position of lines within the visual field, where two conflicting patterns of bisection error have been reported. Some authors report a centrifugal pattern of error, where perceived line midpoint shifts away from the vertical midline, regardless of line position, i.e., relatively leftward for leftward displaced lines and vice versa. Others have reported a centripetal pattern of bisection error, where perceived line midpoint is always displaced centrally, toward the vertical midline, regardless of line position. There is no satisfactory explanation for these discrepant findings. An experiment using a tachistoscopic forced-choice line bisection protocol is described which discloses that neurologically normal right-handed subjects (N=82) typically display a centrifugal pattern of bisection error when lines are azimuthally displaced over a relatively small range, whereas a centripetal pattern is observed when lines are displaced over a wider range. Results from ancillary control experiments, in which eye position was measured during testing, confirm that systematic differences in gaze direction do not occur as a function of line position, and thus cannot account for the different patterns of bisection error. We conclude that stimulus context significantly modulates the strategy with which observers deploy spatial attention. When line position is constant, or varies over a narrow range, observers hold attention steady and widen its aperture to accommodate the relevant range of spatial location. Centrifugal bisection error is thus produced by the asymmetric cueing effect of laterally displaced lines, according to the activation-orientation theory [M. Kinsbourne: Acta Psychologica 33, 193-201 (1970)]. When the range of line position exceeds the aperture of focal attention, we hypothesize that observers adopt a strategy in which attention is dynamically scanned in the direction of azimuthally displaced lines. The effects of attentional scanning on line bisection performance are quite robust. The centripetal scanning proposed to occur for widely displaced lines is consistent with the centripetal pattern of bisection error in this condition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10702377     DOI: 10.2741/a496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Biosci        ISSN: 1093-4715


  16 in total

1.  Examining the influence of 'noise' on judgements of spatial extent.

Authors:  Derick F Valadao; Marc Hurwitz; James Danckert
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-10-16       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Left of centre: asymmetries for the horizontal vertical line illusion.

Authors:  Elisha K Josev; Jason D Forte; Michael E R Nicholls
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2010-11-25

3.  Spatial distortions in localization and midline estimation in hemianopia and normal vision.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Thomas M VanVleet; Michael A Silver; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Line copying: distinct "where" and "aiming" spatial bias in healthy adults.

Authors:  Priyanka P Shah; Keith O Gonzalez; A M Barrett
Journal:  Cogn Behav Neurol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.600

5.  The nature and contribution of space- and object-based attentional biases to free-viewing perceptual asymmetries.

Authors:  Catherine A Orr; Michael E R Nicholls
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-12-10       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 6.  A critical review and meta-analysis of the perceptual pseudoneglect across psychiatric disorders: is there a continuum?

Authors:  M Ribolsi; G Di Lorenzo; G Lisi; C Niolu; A Siracusano
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2014-11-07

7.  Central fixations with rightward deviations: saccadic eye movements on the landmark task.

Authors:  Nicole A Thomas; Tobias Loetscher; Michael E R Nicholls
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Asymmetries in attention as revealed by fixations and saccades.

Authors:  Nicole A Thomas; Tobias Loetscher; Michael E R Nicholls
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Hemifield asymmetry in the potency of exogenous auditory and visual cues.

Authors:  Yamaya Sosa; Aaron M Clarke; Mark E McCourt
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-04-03       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Pseudoneglect for mental alphabet lines is affected by prismatic adaptation.

Authors:  Michael E R Nicholls; Adrian Kamer; Andrea M Loftus
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.