» Articles » PMID: 18381226

Perceptual-attentional and Motor-intentional Bias in Near and Far Space

Overview
Journal Brain Cogn
Specialties Neurology
Psychiatry
Date 2008 Apr 3
PMID 18381226
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Spatial bias demonstrated in tasks such as line-bisection may stem from perceptual-attentional (PA) "where" and motor-intentional (MI) "aiming" influences. We tested normal participants' line bisection performance in the presence of an asymmetric visual distracter with a video apparatus designed to dissociate PA from MI bias. An experimenter stood as a distractor to the left or right of a video monitor positioned in either near or far space, where participants viewed lines and a laser point they directed under (1) natural and (2) mirror-reversed conditions. Each trial started with the pointer positioned at either the top left or top right corner of the screen, and alternated thereafter. Data analysis indicated that participants made primarily PA leftward errors in near space, but not in far space. Furthermore, PA, but not MI, bias increased bilaterally in the direction of distraction. In contrast, MI, but not PA, bias was shifted bilaterally in the direction of startside. Results support the conclusion that a primarily PA left sided bias in near space is consistent with right hemisphere spatial attentional dominance. A bottom-up visual distractor specifically affected PA "where" spatial bias while top-down motor cuing influenced MI "aiming" bias.

Citing Articles

Advances in Stroke Neurorehabilitation.

Gunduz M, Bucak B, Keser Z J Clin Med. 2023; 12(21).

PMID: 37959200 PMC: 10650295. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216734.


Recent advances in treatment of spatial neglect: networks and neuropsychology.

Carter A, Barrett A Expert Rev Neurother. 2023; 23(7):587-601.

PMID: 37273197 PMC: 10740348. DOI: 10.1080/14737175.2023.2221788.


Spatial neglect treatment: The brain's spatial-motor Aiming systems.

Barrett A, Goedert K, Carter A, Chaudhari A Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2021; 32(5):662-688.

PMID: 33941021 PMC: 9632633. DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2020.1862678.


The Influence of Co-action on a Simple Attention Task: A Shift Back to the Status Quo.

Dosso J, Roberts K, DiGiacomo A, Kingstone A Front Psychol. 2018; 9:874.

PMID: 29915553 PMC: 5994486. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00874.


Frontal lesions predict response to prism adaptation treatment in spatial neglect: A randomised controlled study.

Goedert K, Chen P, Foundas A, Barrett A Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018; 30(1):32-53.

PMID: 29558241 PMC: 6148387. DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2018.1448287.


References
1.
Fischer M . Less attention and more perception in cued line bisection. Brain Cogn. 1994; 25(1):24-33. DOI: 10.1006/brcg.1994.1020. View

2.
Tegner R, LEVANDER M . Through a looking glass. A new technique to demonstrate directional hypokinesia in unilateral neglect. Brain. 1991; 114 ( Pt 4):1943-51. DOI: 10.1093/brain/114.4.1943. View

3.
Barrett A, Buxbaum L, Coslett H, Edwards E, Heilman K, Hillis A . Cognitive rehabilitation interventions for neglect and related disorders: moving from bench to bedside in stroke patients. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006; 18(7):1223-36. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1223. View

4.
Varnava A, McCarthy M, Beaumont J . Line bisection in normal adults: direction of attentional bias for near and far space. Neuropsychologia. 2002; 40(8):1372-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00204-4. View

5.
Bradshaw J, Nathan G, Nettleton N, Wilson L, Pierson J . Why is there a left side underestimation in rod bisection?. Neuropsychologia. 1987; 25(4):735-8. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(87)90067-4. View