Literature DB >> 2249435

The deployment of visual attention in the intact field of hemineglect patients.

E Làdavas1, A Petronio, C Umiltà.   

Abstract

Patients with left hemispatial neglect after right hemisphere lesions and control patients with right hemisphere lesions were presented in the ipsilesional (i.e., intact) visual field with stimuli that could occupy left-right relative positions. The patients were required to discriminate between target stimuli and distractors by emitting go/no-go responses. Reaction times (RTs) and measures of sensitivity (d') and response bias (beta) were obtained. The within-subjects comparisons showed that neglect patients were faster in the right than the left relative position, whereas control patients were faster in the left than the right relative position. The between-subjects comparisons showed that neglect patients were faster than control patients in the right relative position but slower in the left relative position. These effects were due to changes in processing efficiency, as attested by the fact that the differences in response speed were accompanied by congruent differences in sensitivity, whereas no differences in response bias were found. The results were interpreted by assuming that neglect patients focus attention on the right relative position and, therefore, have a small attentional focus concentrated on that position. By contrast, control patients, like normal subjects, would distribute attention between the two possible stimulus positions and, therefore, allocate attention to a larger portion of the visual field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2249435     DOI: 10.1016/s0010-9452(13)80083-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cortex        ISSN: 0010-9452            Impact factor:   4.027


  16 in total

1.  Line versus representational bisections in unilateral spatial neglect.

Authors:  S Ishiai; Y Koyama; K Seki; M Izawa
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 10.154

2.  Reaction times and perceptual adjustments are sensitive to the illusory distortion of space.

Authors:  Silvia Savazzi; Barbara Emanuele; Paige Scalf; Diane Beck
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-02-05       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Perceptual grouping operates independently of attentional selection: evidence from hemispatial neglect.

Authors:  Sarah Shomstein; Ruth Kimchi; Maxim Hammer; Marlene Behrmann
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  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

5.  Do supine position and deprivation of visual environment influence spatial neglect?

Authors:  Sahawanatou Gassama; Antoine Deplancke; Arnaud Saj; Jacques Honoré; Marc Rousseaux
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Effects of cueing on visuospatial processing in unilateral spatial neglect.

Authors:  S Ishiai; K Seki; Y Koyama; R Okiyama
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.849

7.  Asymmetries of visual attention after circumscribed subcortical vascular lesions.

Authors:  B Fimm; R Zahn; M Mull; S Kemeny; F Buchwald; F Block; M Schwarz
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 10.154

8.  Spatial distribution of attention and inter-hemispheric competition.

Authors:  Kao Yamaoka; Chikashi Michimata
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2015-08-20

Review 9.  The spatial representation of numbers: evidence from neglect and pseudoneglect.

Authors:  Carlo Umiltà; Konstantinos Priftis; Marco Zorzi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-11-05       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  P50 sensory gating is related to performance on select tasks of cognitive inhibition.

Authors:  Carly A Yadon; Julie M Bugg; Michael A Kisley; Deana B Davalos
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.282

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.