Literature DB >> 11161362

The influence of unimanual response on pseudoneglect magnitude.

M E McCourt1, P Freeman, C Tahmahkera-Stevens, M Chaussee.   

Abstract

Various factors influence the degree of leftward error (pseudoneglect) (Bowers & Heilman, 1980) that typifies the performance of normal subjects in line bisection tasks (Jewell & McCourt, 2000). The results of this experiment show that unimanual responding also exerts a subtle but significant modulating influence on spatial attention, as indexed by the differential magnitude of pseudoneglect. Using a forced-choice tachistoscopic line bisection protocol, 184 subjects (92 male and 92 female) bisected horizontally oriented lines (22.3 degrees wide x 0.39 degrees height) presented to central vision in two conditions, in which bisection responses were executed via button presses using the first two fingers of either the left (LH) or right (RH) hand. Perceived line midpoint deviated significantly leftward of veridical (p <.05) in both conditions. There was no significant influence of subject sex (p >.05). A significant influence of unimanual response was revealed (p <.05) where pseudoneglect magnitude was greater in the LH than the RH condition. The results are interpreted within the framework of the activation-orientation theory of attentional asymmetry. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11161362     DOI: 10.1006/brcg.2000.1255

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Cogn        ISSN: 0278-2626            Impact factor:   2.310


  12 in total

1.  "Graspability" of objects affects gaze patterns during perception and action tasks.

Authors:  Loni Desanghere; J J Marotta
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  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

3.  Time-on-task effect in pseudoneglect.

Authors:  André Dufour; Pascale Touzalin; Victor Candas
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-12-05       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Biases of spatial attention in vision and audition.

Authors:  Yamaya Sosa; Wolfgang A Teder-Sälejärvi; Mark E McCourt
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2010-06-20       Impact factor: 2.310

5.  Bimanual-vertical hand movements.

Authors:  Jay C Kwon; Matthew L Cohen; John Williamson; Brandon Burtis; Kenneth M Heilman
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.892

6.  Hemispheric asymmetry and callosal integration of visuospatial attention in schizophrenia: a tachistoscopic line bisection study.

Authors:  Mark E McCourt; Marina Shpaner; Daniel C Javitt; John J Foxe
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2008-05-16       Impact factor: 4.939

7.  The effect of acute ethanol challenge on global visuospatial attention: exaggeration of leftward bias in line bisection.

Authors:  Lynnette Leone; Mark E McCourt
Journal:  Laterality       Date:  2009-03-25

8.  Left hand dominance affects supra-second time processing.

Authors:  Carmelo Mario Vicario; Sonia Bonní; Giacomo Koch
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2011-10-24

9.  Intra- and Inter-Task Reliability of Spatial Attention Measures in Pseudoneglect.

Authors:  Gemma Learmonth; Aodhan Gallagher; Jamie Gibson; Gregor Thut; Monika Harvey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Connectivity analysis reveals a cortical network for eye gaze perception.

Authors:  Lauri Nummenmaa; Luca Passamonti; James Rowe; Andrew D Engell; Andrew J Calder
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 5.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.