Literature DB >> 11640939

Pseudoneglect and the cross-over effect.

L Rueckert1, A Deravanesian, D Baboorian, A Lacalamita, M Repplinger.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11640939     DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00082-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  14 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.  Biases in attentional orientation and magnitude estimation explain crossover: neglect is a disorder of both.

Authors:  Mark Mennemeier; Christopher A Pierce; Anjan Chatterjee; Britt Anderson; George Jewell; Rachael Dowler; Adam J Woods; Tannahill Glenn; Victor W Mark
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Static versus dynamic judgments of spatial extent.

Authors:  Marc Hurwitz; Derick Valadao; James Danckert
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Flanker interference effects in a line bisection task.

Authors:  Sergio Chieffi; Tina Iachini; Alessandro Iavarone; Giovanni Messina; Andrea Viggiano; Marcellino Monda
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Exploring number space by random digit generation.

Authors:  Tobias Loetscher; Peter Brugger
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-02-09       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Representational pseudoneglect in line bisection.

Authors:  Stephen Darling; Robert H Logie; Sergio Della Sala
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-10

9.  Are object- and space-based attentional biases both important to free-viewing perceptual asymmetries?

Authors:  Michael E R Nicholls; Georgina Hughes; Jason B Mattingley; John L Bradshaw
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-12-18       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.