Literature DB >> 11748897

Crossover by line length and spatial location.

M Mennemeier1, S Z Rapcsak, C Pierce, E Vezey.   

Abstract

It is well known that line length has a systematic influence on line bisection error in neglect. Most patients with neglect misbisect long lines on the same side of true center as their brain lesion but then cross over on short lines, misbisecting them on the opposite side (i.e., crossover by line length). What is less recognized is that the spatial location of lines relative to the viewer can similarly induce a crossover effect when one considers line bisection error scores that have been averaged across individual line lengths. Patients with right hemisphere injury and neglect classically make averaged line bisection errors that fall right of true center on lines located either at midline or to the left of the viewer; however, we observed that the averaged line bisection error can fall left of true center when lines are located to the right of the viewer (i.e., crossover by spatial location). We hypothesized that crossover by both line length and spatial location stem from systematic errors in magnitude estimation, i.e., perceived line length. We tested predictions based on this hypothesis by examining how the crossover effect by line length is altered by the spatial location of lines along a horizontal axis relative to the viewer. Participants included patients with unilateral lesions of the right and left cerebral hemispheres and age-appropriate normal subjects. All groups demonstrated a crossover effect by line length at the midline location but the effect was altered by placing lines to the right and left of the viewer. In particular, patients with right hemisphere injury and neglect crossed-over across a broader range of line lengths when the lines were located to the right of the viewer rather than at either midline or left of the viewer. It is proposed that mental representations of stimulus magnitude are altered in neglect, in addition to mental representations of space, and that traditional accounts of neglect can be enhanced by including the psychophysical concept of magnitude estimation. Copyright 2001 Elsevier Science.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11748897      PMCID: PMC4442675          DOI: 10.1006/brcg.2001.1317

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


  31 in total

1.  Individual variation in line bisection: a study of normal subjects with application to the interpretation of visual neglect.

Authors:  L Manning; P W Halligan; J C Marshall
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.139

2.  Unilateral neglect of representational space.

Authors:  E Bisiach; C Luzzatti
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 4.027

3.  Spatial compression in visual neglect: a case study.

Authors:  P W Halligan; J C Marshall
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 4.027

Review 4.  Attentional networks.

Authors:  M I Posner; S Dehaene
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 13.837

5.  Length representation in normal and neglect subjects with opposite reading habits studied through a line extension task.

Authors:  S Chokron; J M Bernard; M Imbert
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.027

6.  Nonsensory neglect.

Authors:  R T Watson; B D Miller; K M Heilman
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 10.422

7.  When right goes left: an investigation of line bisection in a case of visual neglect.

Authors:  J C Marshall; P W Halligan
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 4.027

8.  Selective spatial attention and length representation in normal subjects and in patients with unilateral spatial neglect.

Authors:  P Nichelli; M Rinaldi; R Cubelli
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 2.310

9.  Line bisection errors in visual neglect: misguided action or size distortion?

Authors:  A D Milner; M Harvey; R C Roberts; S V Forster
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  The psychophysical power law and unilateral spatial neglect.

Authors:  A Chatterjee; M Mennemeier; K M Heilman
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 2.310

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  Rose-colored answers: neuropsychological deficits and patient-reported outcomes after stroke.

Authors:  Anna M Barrett
Journal:  Behav Neurol       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 3.342

4.  Stimulation Induced Changes in Ratio Scaling Between and Within Hemispheres.

Authors:  Tracy Kretzmer; Mark Mennemeier
Journal:  Adv Neurol Neurosci Res       Date:  2022-01-07

Review 5.  A Meta-Analysis of Line Bisection and Landmark Task Performance in Older Adults.

Authors:  Gemma Learmonth; Marietta Papadatou-Pastou
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 6.940

6.  Can Crossover and Altered Magnitude Estimation in Neglect Be Explained by Contextual Effects?

Authors:  George R Jewell; Jill Salem; Shannon Hartley; Elsie Vezey; Victor W Mark; Mark S Mennemeier
Journal:  Adv Neurol Neurosci Res       Date:  2022-05-17
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.