Literature DB >> 9733554

Analysis of primary and secondary influences on spatial neglect.

J C Adair1, D L Na, R L Schwartz, K M Heilman.   

Abstract

When attempting to determine the middle of a line, patients with neglect deviate from true center. Deviation may be induced by perceptual-attentional bias, premotor-intentional bias, or both. Using a video-based apparatus, we decoupled perceptual from premotor influences on line bisection performance in patients with hemispatial neglect to examine (a) the relationship between primary and secondary bias and (b) the relationship of bias type to lesion location. The same video-based procedure was applied to target cancellation to determine if neglect type varied as a function of task. Primary attentional-perceptual bias was found using line bisection in 14/26 subjects, most of whom had lesions involving the posterior hemisphere. Primary premotor-intentional bias on line bisection was more often associated with lesions of frontal-subcortical structures. The neglect type determined by the bisection task agreed with the results of target cancellation in most cases. Secondary bias was determined based upon whether decoupling decreased the magnitude of bisection error (concordant), increased error (discordant), or produced no significant change. Most patients showed a secondary bias, with 12/26 in the discordant group and 11/26 in the concordant group. Discordant secondary bias was more common in premotor-intentional neglect (10/12) than in perceptual-attentional neglect (2/14), whereas concordant bias was more common in the latter group (10/14) compared to the former (1/12). The nonrandom relationship between primary and secondary bias may provide a more detailed description of ways in which anatomically separate components of a cortical network contribute to spatial processing under conditions of perceptuomotor incongruity. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9733554     DOI: 10.1006/brcg.1998.1002

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


  7 in total

1.  Perceptual-attentional and motor-intentional bias in near and far space.

Authors:  John P Garza; Paul J Eslinger; Anna M Barrett
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 2.310

2.  Prism adaptation differently affects motor-intentional and perceptual-attentional biases in healthy individuals.

Authors:  Paola Fortis; Kelly M Goedert; Anna M Barrett
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Spatial bias and right hemisphere function: sex-specific changes with aging.

Authors:  Peii Chen; Kelly M Goedert; Elizabeth Murray; Karen Kelly; Shpresa Ahmeti; Anna M Barrett
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 2.892

4.  Monocular patching may induce ipsilateral "where" spatial bias.

Authors:  Peii Chen; Lillian Erdahl; Anna M Barrett
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 5.  Prism adaptation for spatial neglect after stroke: translational practice gaps.

Authors:  A M Barrett; Kelly M Goedert; Julia C Basso
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 42.937

6.  Normative data for the letter-cancellation task in school children.

Authors:  Balaram Pradhan; H R Nagendra
Journal:  Int J Yoga       Date:  2008-07

7.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.