Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:33:55.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution of attention in normal people as a function of spatial location: Right–left, up–down

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2006

VALERIA DRAGO ,
GREGORY P. CRUCIAN ,
FRANCESCO PISANI  and
KENNETH M. HEILMAN
VALERIA DRAGO
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology and Center for Neuropsychological Studies, University of Florida College of Medicine, and Neurology Service, Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida Department of Neurosciences, Psychiatric and Anaesthesiological Sciences, First Neurology Clinic, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
GREGORY P. CRUCIAN
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology and Center for Neuropsychological Studies, University of Florida College of Medicine, and Neurology Service, Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida
FRANCESCO PISANI
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosciences, Psychiatric and Anaesthesiological Sciences, First Neurology Clinic, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
KENNETH M. HEILMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology and Center for Neuropsychological Studies, University of Florida College of Medicine, and Neurology Service, Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The spatial allocation of attention influences estimates of stimulus magnitude, including line length and the line bisection task has been used to assess the asymmetrical allocation of spatial attention. The purpose of this study is to learn if normal subjects' allocation of attention changes as a function of the trunk–head centered spatial position of the line stimuli. Normal subjects were asked to bisect lines placed in five different head–trunk centered special positions (central, right up–distal, left up–distal, right down–proximal, left down–proximal). When compared with the central condition, deviations in the right or left lateral conditions were only significant in the down–proximal conditions, such that the bisection bias significantly shifted direction to the left of the objective midline in left hemispace and to the right of the objective midline in right hemispace, suggesting that stimuli presented in lateral hemispace primarily activate the contralateral hemisphere's attentional systems. The finding that the lines presented in down–proximal lateral hemispace induce a greater spatial bias than lines in up–distal lateral space suggests that the portion of the brain's dorsal visual system, which processes stimuli in down–proximal space, influences the horizontal (right–left) spatial allocation of attention more than does the brain's ventral visual system. (JINS, 2006, 12, 532–537.)

Keywords

PseudoneglectLine bisectionAttentional systemHealthy adultsVisual systemsNeuropsychology
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , July 2006 , pp. 532 - 537
Copyright
© 2006 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Balint, R. (1909). Seelenlahmung des “Schauens“, optische Ataxie, raumliche Storung der A Aufmerkamkeit. Montasschrift fur Psychiatrie und Neurologie, 25, 57–71.Google Scholar
Bauer, R.M. & Demery, J.A. (2003). Agnosia. In K.M Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (pp. 236–295). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bisiach, E. & Vallar, G. (2000). Unilateral neglect in humans. In F. Boller & J. Grafmann (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (pp. 459–502). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bodamer, J. (1947). Prosopoagnosie. Archives Psychiatrie Nervenkr, 179, 6–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, D. & Heilman, K.M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effect of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 309–319.Google Scholar
Butter, C.M., Mark, V.W., & Heilman, K.M. (1988). An experimental analysis of factors underlying neglect in line bisection. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 51, 1581–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, A. (1994). Picturing unilateral spatial neglect: Viewer versus object centered reference frames. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 57, 1236–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crovitz, H.F. & Zenner, K. (1962). A group-test for assessing hand and eye-dominance. American Journal of Psychology, 75, 271–276.Google Scholar
Diller, L., Ben-Yishay, Y., Gerstman, L.J., Goodkin, W., & Weinberg, J. (1974). Studies in cognition and rehabilitation in hemiplegia (Rehabilitation monograph 50). New York: New York University Medical Center Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine.
Farah, M.J., Brunn, J.L., Wong, A.B., Wallace, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1990). Frames of reference for allocating attention to space: Evidence from the neglect syndrome. Neuropsychologia, 28, 335–347.Google Scholar
Fink, G.R., Marshall, J.C., Shah, N.J., Weiss, P.H., Halligan, P.W., Grosse-Ruyken, M., Ziemons, K., Zilles, K., & Freund, H.J. (2000). Line bisection judgments implicate right parietal cortex and cerebellum as assessed by fMRI. Neurology, 54, 1324–1331.Google Scholar
Fink, G.R., Marshall, J.C., Weiss, P.H., & Zilles, K. (2001). The neural basis of vertical and horizontal line bisection judgments: An fMRI study of normal volunteers. Neuroimage, 14, S59–S67.Google Scholar
Fukatsu, R., Fujii, T., Kimura, I., Saso, S., & Kogure, K. (1990). Effects of hand and spatial conditions on visual line bisection. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 161, 329–333.Google Scholar
Halligan, P.W. & Marshall, J.C. (1989). Is neglect (only) lateral? A quadrant analysis of line cancellation. Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology, 11, 793–798.Google Scholar
Haxby, J.V., Grady, C.L., Horwitz, B., Ungerleider, L.G., Mishkin M., Carson R.E., Herscovitch, P., Schapiro, M.B., & Rapoport, S.I. (1993). Disassociation of object and spatial visual processing pathways in human extrastriate cortex. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 88, 1621–1625.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M. (1979). Neglect and related disorders. In K.M. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heilman, K.M., Valenstein, E., & Watson, R.T. (1983). Localization of neglect. In A. Kertesz (Ed.), Localization in neurology (pp. 471–492). New York: Academic Press.
Heilman, K.M. & Van den Abell, T. (1980). Right hemisphere dominance for attention: The mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries of inattention (neglect). Neurology, 30, 327–330.Google Scholar
Hughes, H.C. & Zimba, L.D. (1987). Natural boundaries for the spatial spread of directed visual attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 5–18.Google Scholar
Jeerakathil, T.J. & Kirk, A. (1994). A representational vertical bias. Neurology, 44, 703–706.Google Scholar
Jewell, G. & McCourt, M.E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93–110.Google Scholar
Kleist, K. (1934). Gehirnpathologie. Leipzig: Barth.
Ladavas, E. (1987). Is the hemispatial deficit produced by right parietal lobe damage associated with retinal or gravitational coordinates? Brain, 110, 167–180.Google Scholar
Lissauer, H. (1890). Ein Fall von Seelenblindheit nebst einem Beitrage zur Theorie derselben. Archives fur Psychiatrie, 21, 222–270.Google Scholar
Luh, K.E. (1995). Line bisection and perceptual asymmetries in normal Individuals: What you see is not what you get. Neuropsychology, 9, 435–448.Google Scholar
Mark, V.W. & Heilman, K.M. (1997). Diagonal neglect on cancellation. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1425–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, V.W. & Heilman, K.M. (1998). Diagonal spatial neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 65, 348–352.Google Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Vezey, E., Chatterjee, A., Rapcsak, S.Z., & Heilman, K.M. (1997). Contributions of the left and right cerebral hemispheres to line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 35, 703–715.Google Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Wertman, E., & Heilman, K.M. (1992). Neglect of near peripersonal space. Evidence for multidirectional attentional systems in humans. Brain, 155, 37–50.Google Scholar
Mesulam, M. (1981). A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect. Annals of Neurology, 10, 309–325.Google Scholar
Miles, W.R. (1930). Ocular dominance in human adults. The Journal of General Psychology, 3, 412–430.Google Scholar
Milner, A.D., Brechmann, M., & Pagliarini, L. (1992). To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 30, 515–526.Google Scholar
Mishkin, M., Lewis, M.E., & Ungerleider, L.G. (1982). Equivalence of parieto-preoccipital subareas for visuospatial ability in monkeys. Behavioral Brain Research, 6, 41–55.Google Scholar
Nichelli, P., Rinaldi, M., & Cubelli, R. (1989). Selective spatial attention and length representation in normal subjects and in patients with unilateral spatial neglect. Brain and Cognition, 9, 57–70.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of Handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.Google Scholar
Pardo, J.V., Fox, P.T., & Raichle, M.E. (1991). Localization of a human system for sustained attention by positron emission tomography. Nature, 349, 61–64.Google Scholar
Porta, G.B.d. (1593). De Refractione, optices parte: Libri novem. Naples, Italy: Horatii Salvania.
Rapcsak, S.Z., Cimino, C.R., & Heilman, K.M. (1988). Altitudinal neglect. Neurology, 38, 277–281.Google Scholar
Rapcsak, S.Z., Verfaellie, M., Fleet, W.S., & Heilman, K.M. (1989). Selective attention in hemispatial neglect. Archives of Neurology, 46, 178–182.Google Scholar
Reuter-Lorenz, P.A. & Posner, M.I. (1990). Components of neglect from right hemisphere damage: An analysis of line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 28, 327–333.Google Scholar
Schiffer, F., Mottaghy, F.M., Pandey Vimal, R.L., Renshaw, P.F., Cowan, R., Pascual-Leone, A., Teicher, M., Valente, E., & Rohan, M. (2004). Lateral visual field stimulation reveals extrastriate cortical activation in the contralateral hemisphere: An fMRI study. Psychiatry Research, 131, 1–9.Google Scholar
Vallar, G. (1993). The anatomical basis of spatial hemineglect in humans. In I.H. Robertson & J.C. Marshall (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: Clinical and experimental studies (pp. 27–59). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vallar, G. (2001). Extrapersonal visual unilateral spatial neglect and its neuroanatomy. Neuroimage, 14, S52–S58.Google Scholar
Vallar, G., Bottini, G., & Paulesu, E. (2003). Neglect syndromes: The role of the parietal cortex. Advances in Neurology, 93, 293–319.Google Scholar
Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K.M. (1988). Attentional factors in the occurrence of stimulus-response compatibility effects. Neuropsychologia, 26, 435–444.Google Scholar
Watson, R.T., Valenstein, E., Day, A., & Heilman, K.M. (1994). Posterior neocortical systems subserving awareness and neglect. Neglect associated with superior temporal sulcus but not area 7 lesions. Archives of Neurology, 51, 1014–1021.Google Scholar
Weiss, P.H., Marshall, J.C., Wunderlich, G., Tellmann, L., Halligan, P.W., Freund, H.J., Zilles, K., & Fink, G.R. (2000). Neural consequences of acting in near versus far space: A physiological basis for clinical dissociations. Brain, 12, 2531–2541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar