Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:49:56.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of left-sided movements on line bisection in unilateral neglect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2009

Keh-Chung Lin ,
Sharon A. Cermak ,
Marcel Kinsbourne  and
Catherine A. Trombly
Keh-Chung Lin
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215
Sharon A. Cermak
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215
Marcel Kinsbourne
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155
Catherine A. Trombly
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thirteen patients with left neglect performed line bisection under four conditions: no cue, visual cueing involving the report of a digit placed at the left end of the line, circling the left-end digit, and digit circling plus tracing of the line with the right index finger from its left end to its midpoint before bisection. Digit circling plus finger tracing was unequivocally more effective in reducing left neglect than digit circling alone, which was in turn more effective than visual cueing; indeed, digit circling with tracing completely abolished the rightward bisection bias. Thus continuously directing visuomotor control to the left side of the line (even with the right hand) until bisection is performed reduces neglect more than only requiring patients to attend to left-sided visual cues. The facilitatory effects of the cueing procedures may reflect their differential efficacy in constraining as well as attracting attention and action to the left part of the target line. These findings have implications for neglect rehabilitation. (JINS, 1996, 2, 404–411.)

Keywords

StrokeHemi-inattentionCueingRehabilitation
Type
Thematic Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 2 , Issue 5 , September 1996 , pp. 404 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 1996

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

Binder, J., Marshall, R., Lazar, R., Benjamin, J., & Mohr, J. P. (1992). Distinct syndromes of hemineglcct. Archives of Neurology, 49, 1187–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisiach, E., Bulgarelli, C., Sterzi, R., & Vallar, G. (1983). Line bisection and cognitive plasticity of unilateral neglect of space. Brain and Cognition, 2, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bisiach, E., Capitani, E., Colombo, A., & Spinnler, H. (1976). Halving a horizontal segment: A study on hemisphere damaged patients with focal lesions. Archives Suisses de Neurologic Neurochirurgi et de Psychiatrie, 118, 119–206.Google Scholar
Butter, C. M., Kirsch, N. L., & Reeves, G. (1990). The effect of lateralized dynamic stimuli on unilateral spatial neglect following right hemisphere lesions. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 2, 39–46.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, Sea M. J., Henderson, A., & Cermak, S. A. (1993). Patterns of visual spatial inattention and their functional significance in stroke patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 355–360.Google Scholar
Ferro, J. M. & Kertesz, A. (1984). Posterior internal capsule infarction associated with neglect. Archives of Neurology, 41, 422–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halligan, P. W., Manning, L., & Marshall, J. C. (1991). Hemispheric activation vs spatio-motor cueing in visual neglect: A case study. Neuropsychologia, 29, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halligan, P. W. & Marshall, J. C. (1989a). Two techniques for the assessment of line bisection in visuo-spatial neglect: A single case study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 52, 1300–1302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halligan, P. W. & Marshall, J. C. (1989b). Perceptual cueing and perceptuo-motor compatibility in visuo-spatial neglect: A single case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 6, 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halligan, P. W. & Marshall, J. C. (1989c). Laterality of motor response in visuo-spatial neglect: A case study. Neuropsychologia, 27, 1301–1307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., & Watson, R. T. (1984). Pseudoneglect in a patient with partial caliosal disconnection. Brain, 107, 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, K. M. & Valenstein, E. (1979). Mechanisms underlying hemispatial neglect. Annals of Neurology, 5, 166–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hjaltason, H., Caneman, G., & Tegner, R. (1993). Visual and tactile rod bisection in unilateral neglect. Cortex, 29, 583–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Mass communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jancke, L. (1993). A differential effect of concurrent verbal activity on right arm movements rightwards and leftwards. Cortex, 29, 161–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joanette, Y. & Brouchon, M. (1984). Visual allesthesia in manual pointing: Some evidence for a sensorimotor cerebral organization. Brain and Cognition, 3, 152–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joanette, Y., Brouchon, M., Gauthier, L., & Samson, M. (1986). Pointing with left vs right hand in left visual field neglect. Neuropsychologia, 24, 391–396.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, E. (1988). A process approach to neuropsychological assessment. In Boll, T. & Bryant, B.K. (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology and brain function: Research, measurement, and practice (pp. 129–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. (1970). A model for the mechanism of unilateral neglect in space. Transactions of the American Neurological Association, 95, 143–146.Google Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. (1987). Mechanisms of unilateral neglect. In Jeannerod, M. (Ed.), Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect (pp. 69–86). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. (1993). Orientational bias model of unilateral neglect: Evidence from attentional gradients within hemispace. In Robertson, I. H. & Marshall, J. C. (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: Clinical and experimental studies (pp. 63–86). Hove, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kinsella, G., Oliver, J., Ng, K., Packer, S., & Stark, R. (1993). Analysis of the syndrome of unilateral neglect. Cortex, 29, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, K.-C. (1993, June). Effects of cueing on unilateral neglect: Three single-subject studies. Research poster presented at the 73rd annual conference of the American Occupational Therapy Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Lin, K.-C. (1994). The effects of cueing on unilateral neglect in stroke patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston.Google Scholar
Mattingley, J. B., Pierson, J. M., Bradshaw, J. L., Phillips, J. G., & Bradshaw, J. A. (1993). To see or not to see: The effects of visible and invisible cues on line bisection judgements in unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia, 31, 1201–1215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milner, A. D., Harvey, M., Roberts, R. C., & Forster, S. V. (1993). Line bisection errors in visual neglect: Misguided action or size distortion? Neuropsychologia, 31, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nichelli, P. & Rinaldi, M. (1989). Selective spatial attention and length representation in normal subjects and in patients with unilateral spatial neglect. Brain and Cognition, 9, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. & Posner, M. I. (1990). Components of neglect from right-hemisphere damage: An analysis of line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 28, 327–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riddoch, M. J. & Humphreys, G. W. (1983). The effect of cueing on unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia, 21, 589–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzolatti, G. & Gallese, V. (1988). Mechanisms and theories of spatial neglect. In Boiler, F. & Grafman, J. (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology. Vol. 1 (pp. 223–246). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. & North, N. (1992). Spatio-motor cueing in unilateral left neglect: The role of hemispace, hand and motor activation. Neuropsychologia, 30, 553–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, I. & North, N. (1993). Active and passive activation of left limbs: Influence on visual and sensory neglect. Neuropsychologia, 31, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, I. & North, N. (1994). One hand is better than two: Motor extinction of left hand advantage in unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, I., North, N., & Geggie, C. (1992). Spatio-motor cueing in unilateral left neglect: Three single-case studies of its therapeutic effects. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 55, 799–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeltgen, M. G., Roeltgen, D. P., & Heilman, K. M. (1989). Clinical reports: Unilateral motor impersistence and hemispatial neglect from a right striatal lesion. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 2, 125–135.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Samuelsson, H. (1990). Unilateral spatial neglect after right-brain damage expressed in a line-bisecting task. Goteborg Psychological Reports, 20, 31–38.Google Scholar
Schcnkenberg, T., Bradford, D. C., & Ajax, E. T. (1980). Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurologic impairment. Neurology, 30, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, S. & Mesulam, M.-M. (1985). Mental state assessment of young and elderly adults in behavioral neurology. In Mesulam, M.-M. (Ed.), Principles of behavioral neurology (pp. 71–123). Philadelphia: FA Davis.Google Scholar