Unilateral attention deficits and hemispheric asymmetries in the control of visual attention
References (27)
- et al.
Pseudoneglect: effects of hemispace on tactile line bisection task
Neuropsychologia
(1980) - et al.
Right hemispheric dominance for mediating cerebral activation
Neuropsychologia
(1979) - et al.
Defects in accuracy of reaching after removal of posterior parietal cortex in monkeys
Brain Res.
(1978) - et al.
How do the parietal lobes direct covert attention?
Neuropsychologia
(1987) - et al.
Discriminability of stimuli varying in physical and retinal orientation
J. exp. Psychol.
(1967) - et al.
Voluntary control of frame of reference and slope equivalence under head rotation
J. exp. Psychol.
(1968) - et al.
Components of visual attention: alterations in response pattern to visual stimuli following parietal lobe infarction
Brain
(1986) - et al.
Unilateral neglect, representational schema and consciousness
Brain
(1979) Space representation in unilateral spatial neglect
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat.
(1976)Disorders of Space Exploration and Cognition
(1982)
Performance by split-brain humans on lateralized vigilance tasks
Cortex
Hypoarousal in patients neglect syndrome and emotional indifference
Neurology
Right hemisphere dominance for attention: the mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries of inattention (neglect)
Neurology
Cited by (70)
Ipsilesional perceptual deficits in hemispatial neglect: Case reports
2020, CortexCitation Excerpt :On the ipsilesional side, however, certain types of information, such as the metacontrast mask used in this study, may displace preceding stimuli from conscious perception for extended periods of time. Previous studies have demonstrated impairments of attentional orienting towards targets in ipsilesional space when an attentional cue was presented more ipsilesionally, thereby requiring a contralesional shift of attention within the ipsilesional hemifeld (Ladavas, 1990; Ladavas et al., 1989). The current results extend these previous findings by showing extended spatial and temporal processing deficits in the often presumed “normal” visual field in neglect patients.
Minding gaps on the skin: Opposite bisection biases on forehead and back of one's head
2016, Consciousness and CognitionCitation Excerpt :Building on literature using the graphesthetic task (Stracke, 1947), the former finding (see Section 4.2 for the discussion of the latter) suggests that participants may take an embodied perspective when observing their back with their mind’s eye, hence they display a pseudoneglect. In analogy to explanations of pseudoneglect in the visual modality, this result could be explained by assuming a right-hemispheric dominance in spatial attention (e.g. Làdavas et al., 1989) that also comprises visual imagery, possibly automatically triggered by touch on the back of one’s body. In the visual domain, a right hemispheric dominance of near space processing might further strengthen the pseudoneglect, which is evidenced by various studies showing increased leftwards deviations with decreasing distance between the line and the observer (e.g. Longo et al., 2015).
Dissociable effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS reveal distinct functional roles for right parietal cortex in the detection of single and competing stimuli
2015, NeuropsychologiaCitation Excerpt :Thus, orienting attention to the left visual field is associated with increased activity in the right PPC, and vice versa (Szczepanski et al., 2010). In stroke patients, damage to the PPC often causes deficits in attention in the contralateral visual field, a condition known as unilateral spatial neglect (Kleinman et al., 2007; Làdavas et al., 1989; Suchan et al., 2012). This condition is typically longer lasting and more severe following right- than left-hemisphere damage (Molenberghs et al., 2012; Vallar, 1998).
Right hemisphere control of visuospatial attention in near space
2015, NeuropsychologiaCitation Excerpt :Finally, for lines presented very close to the participant, the leftward bias resulting from right hemisphere activation may exceed the baseline rightward bias, producing an overall leftward bias (i.e., pseudoneglect). Thus, on Longo and Lourenco׳s (2006) interpretation, pseudoneglect reflects the sum of two distinct spatial attentional biases: (1) a baseline rightward bias (Kinsbourne, 1987; Làdavas et al., 1989), and (2) a leftward bias caused by activation of near space representations in the right hemisphere. There is less evidence, however, for a right hemisphere specialisation of near space.
Sinistrals' upper hand: Evidence for handedness differences in the representation of body space
2010, Brain and Cognition