Literature DB >> 11931943

Categorisation of 'perceptual' and 'premotor' neglect patients across different tasks: is there strong evidence for a dichotomy?

Monika Harvey1, Tanja Krämer-McCaffery, Lindsay Dow, Peter J S Murphy, Iain D Gilchrist.   

Abstract

The aim of the presented studies was to investigate whether classifications of neglect patients into perceptual (i.e. identifying a patient as suffering from mainly attentional/space representation deficits) and premotor (judging the main impairment to be related towards actions into contralesional space) categories is consistent across different line bisection assessment techniques that have, in the past, been designed to tease these potentially overlapping aspects of hemispatial neglect apart. Twelve patients with hemispatial neglect and three control groups were tested with the Overhead Task, adapted from Nico [Neuropsychologia 34 (1996) 471] in which patients were asked to bisect lines that were mirror reversed, the Pulley Device Technique, adapted from Bisiach et al. [Neurology 40 (1990) 1278] in which they had to perform a movement opposite to the direction of the transaction mark that bisected the line and the Landmark Test, adapted from Milner et al. [Neuropsychologia 30 (1992) 515] in which they had to manually point to the half of a centrally pre-bisected line that, to them, appeared shorter. The specific question was whether these three tasks would categorise the same set of patients in the same way?Most patients could be classified into either the premotor or perceptual category in each task, but no consistent categorisation emerged across the three techniques. Just 1 out of the 12 patients, was consistently classified across all three tasks. It seemed that despite the fact that all tasks essentially required a line bisection response, the perceptual and motor differences between the tasks were still great enough to result in inconsistent classifications. The Landmark Task classified the majority of patients into the perceptual neglect category, while the Overhead and Pulley Device Techniques tended to identify more patients as suffering from a premotor deficit (albeit not the same set of patients).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11931943     DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00202-0

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


  14 in total

1.  The role of the right superior temporal gyrus in stimulus-centered spatial processing.

Authors:  Priyanka P Shah-Basak; Peii Chen; Kevin Caulfield; Jared Medina; Roy H Hamilton
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 3.139

2.  Ipsilesional neglect: behavioral and anatomical correlates.

Authors:  Daniela L Sacchetti; Kelly M Goedert; Anne L Foundas; A M Barrett
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 3.295

3.  Near and far space: Understanding the neural mechanisms of spatial attention.

Authors:  Alison R Lane; Keira Ball; Daniel T Smith; Thomas Schenk; Amanda Ellison
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-10-31       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  The bisection point across variants of the task.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Eli Peli
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Patterns of spontaneous recovery of neglect and associated disorders in acute right brain-damaged patients.

Authors:  A Farnè; L J Buxbaum; M Ferraro; F Frassinetti; J Whyte; T Veramonti; V Angeli; H B Coslett; E Làdavas
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 10.154

6.  Underestimation of contralateral space in neglect: a deficit in the "where" task.

Authors:  Sabrina Pitzalis; Francesco Di Russo; Francesca Figliozzi; Donatella Spinelli
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-06-30       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  A note on Striemer and Danckert's theory of prism adaptation in unilateral neglect.

Authors:  Styrmir Saevarsson; Arni Kristjánsson
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  The Predictive Nature of Pseudoneglect for Visual Neglect: Evidence from Parietal Theta Burst Stimulation.

Authors:  Alice Varnava; Martynas Dervinis; Christopher D Chambers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Disentangling input and output-related components of spatial neglect.

Authors:  Tobias Loetscher; Michael E R Nicholls; Amy Brodtmann; Nicole A Thomas; Peter Brugger
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Prism adaptation theory in unilateral neglect: motor and perceptual components.

Authors:  Styrmir Saevarsson
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.