Literature DB >> 9733559

A search for the optimal stimulus.

M Mennemeier1, S Z Rapcsak, M Dillon, E Vezey.   

Abstract

How do stimulus size and item number relate to the magnitude and direction of error on center estimation and line cancellation tests? How might this relationship inform theories concerning spatial neglect? These questions were addressed by testing twenty patients with right hemisphere lesions, eleven with left hemisphere lesions and eleven normal control subjects on multiple versions of center estimation and line cancellation tests. Patients who made large errors on these tests also demonstrated an optimal or pivotal stimulus value, i.e., a particular size center estimation test or number of lines on cancellation that either minimized error magnitude relative to other size stimuli (optimal) or marked the boundary between normal and abnormal performance (pivotal). Patients with right hemisphere lesions made increasingly greater errors on the center estimation test as stimuli were both larger and smaller than the optimal value, whereas those with left hemisphere lesions made greater errors as stimuli were smaller than a pivotal value. In normal subjects, the direction of errors on center estimation stimuli shifted from the right of true center to the left as stimuli decreased in size (i.e., the crossover effect). Right hemisphere lesions exaggerated this effect, whereas left hemisphere lesions diminished and possibly reversed the direction of crossover. Error direction did not change as a function of stimulus value on cancellation tests. The demonstration of optimal and pivotal stimulus values indicates that performances on center estimation and cancellation tests in neglect are only relative to the stimuli used. In light of other studies, our findings indicate that patients with spatial neglect grossly overestimate the size of small stimuli and underestimate the size of large stimuli, that crossover represents an "apparent" shift in error direction that actually results from normally occurring errors in size perception, and that the left hemisphere is specialized for one aspect of size estimation, whereas the right performs dual roles. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9733559      PMCID: PMC4447308          DOI: 10.1006/brcg.1998.1007

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.  Impaired visual search in patients with unilateral neglect: an oculographic analysis.

Authors:  M Behrmann; S Watt; S E Black; J J Barton
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  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

4.  'Part-whole' processing in unilateral brain-damaged patients: dysfunction of hierarchical organization.

Authors:  L C Robertson; D C Delis
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.139

5.  Selective attention in hemispatial neglect.

Authors:  S Z Rapcsak; M Verfaellie; W S Fleet; K M Heilman
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  1989-02

6.  A PET study of visuospatial attention.

Authors:  M Corbetta; F M Miezin; G L Shulman; S E Petersen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Left visuo-spatial neglect: a meaningless entity?

Authors:  P W Halligan; J C Marshall
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 4.027

8.  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

9.  A study of plane bisection in four cases of visual neglect.

Authors:  J C Marshall; P W Halligan
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 4.027

10.  A stimulus-response relationship in unilateral neglect: the power function.

Authors:  A Chatterjee; M Mennemeier; K M Heilman
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 3.139

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Spatial neglect.

Authors:  A Kirk
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.081

2.  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

3.  Bias in magnitude estimation following left hemisphere injury.

Authors:  Adam J Woods; Mark Mennemeier; Edgar Garcia-Rill; Jay Meythaler; Victor W Mark; George R Jewel; Heather Murphy
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2006-01-24       Impact factor: 3.139

4.  Crossover by line length and spatial location.

Authors:  M Mennemeier; S Z Rapcsak; C Pierce; E Vezey
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.310

5.  Distractor removal amplifies spatial frequency-specific crossover of the attentional bias: a psychophysical and Monte Carlo simulation study.

Authors:  Jiaqing Chen; Matthias Niemeier
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 1.972

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

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

7.  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

8.  Task-related modulation of visual neglect in cancellation tasks.

Authors:  Margarita Sarri; Richard Greenwood; Lalit Kalra; Jon Driver
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2008-08-26       Impact factor: 3.139

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.