Literature DB >> 9051685

Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: psychophysical and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect.

M E McCourt1, C Olafson.   

Abstract

Perceptual and cognitive influences on line bisection were isolated using a tachistoscopic forced-choice paradigm. Pretransected lines were presented for 150 msec at four orientations ([symbol: see text],-,/ and [symbol: see text]). Subjects made either 'left-right' (for -,/, and [symbol: see text] lines) or 'above-below' (for [symbol: see text],/and [symbol: see text] lines) discriminations in response to each line stimulus, depending upon perceived transector location relative to veridical line midpoint. Median response time and point of subjective equality (P.S.E.) were computed for each treatment condition. P.S.E.s in 'left-right' conditions were significantly left of veridical; response time maxima were similarly displaced. Azimuthal pseudoneglect was greatest for horizontal lines. P.S.E.s in 'above-below' conditions were displaced above veridical, and response time maxima were similarly displaced. Altitudinal pseudoneglect was greatest for negative diagonal lines [symbol: see text]. Azimuthal pseudoneglect significantly exceeded altitudinal pseudoneglect. 'Left-right' responses (mean = 478.3 msec) were significantly faster than 'above-below' responses (mean = 504.6 msec). We conclude that scanning eye and/or gross limb movements do not account for pseudoneglect, and that a significant component must be purely perceptual. Chronometric and psychometric measures of pseudoneglect are in remarkable agreement. The effects of altitudinal and azimuthal pseudoneglect are neither separable nor additive, suggesting the existence of independent mechanisms governing the allocation of spatial attention to objects of differing orientation. The slopes of the psychometric functions for lines of cardinal orientation are significantly steeper than for diagonal lines, which may reflect a processing conflict between these putatively independent mechanisms at diagonal line orientations. Decision context significantly modulates the magnitude of pseudoneglect for physically identical stimuli, perhaps reflecting the selective differential engagement of the vertical or horizontal attentional mechanisms. There are significant individual differences in line bisection performance, even in a very homogeneous sample of strongly right-handed subjects.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9051685     DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(96)00143-1

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


  26 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.  Hemispheric asymmetries in perceived depth revealed through a radial line bisection task.

Authors:  Ancrêt Szpak; Nicole A Thomas; Michael E R Nicholls
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  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

4.  Length perception of horizontal and vertical bisected lines.

Authors:  Pom Charras; Juan Lupiáñez
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2009-05-19

5.  The costs of hemispheric specialization in a fish.

Authors:  Marco Dadda; Eugenia Zandonà; Christian Agrillo; Angelo Bisazza
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Complementary hemispheric specialization for language production and visuospatial attention.

Authors:  Qing Cai; Lise Van der Haegen; Marc Brysbaert
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Does gravity influence the visual line bisection task?

Authors:  A Drakul; C J Bockisch; A A Tarnutzer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  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

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.