Approaches to subjective midpoint of horizontal lines in unilateral spatial neglect

Patients with unilateral spatial neglect usually bisect longer lines with greater rightward errors, while they sometimes err leftward for very short lines (e.g., 25 mm). We analysed movements of eye fixation from the time before line presentation to elucidate whether patients with neglect approach the subjective midpoint differently for lines of various lengths. Four patients with left neglect bisected 200 mm, 100 mm, and 25 mm lines that appeared across the centre of a liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor. The fixation immediately before line presentation was located on average near the centre of the lines. Three of the patients approached the subjective midpoint point directly from the left side in more than 70% of the 200 mm and 100 mm trials. The subjective midpoint frequently deviated leftward on the "attended" segment between the leftmost point of fixation and the right endpoint, while it was displaced rightward on the total extent. The three patients initially explored the 25 mm lines searching for the left endpoint. They thereafter bisected the same lines with leftward errors approaching the subjective midpoint from the left side. The remaining patient searched beyond the right endpoint and in turn approached the subjective midpoint from the right side in about half of the trials and independently of line length. In the 200 mm and 100 mm trials, the subjective midpoint divided the attended right segment nearer to the right endpoint. On the attended right extent of a line, patients with neglect may place the subjective midpoint toward the side from which they approached that point. In the bisection of very short lines, approaches from the left endpoint may cause leftward errors of the subjective midpoint. For longer lines, however, approaches from the left side may result in rightward error of bisection for the total length, as the leftward extent from the fixation immediately before line presentation is hardly explored.     

Image of a line is not shrunk but neglected. Absence of crossover in unilateral spatial neglect

Patients with left unilateral spatial neglect following right hemisphere lesions usually err rightward when bisecting a horizontal line. For very short lines (e.g. 25 mm), however, leftward errors or seemingly 'right' neglect is often observed. To explain this paradox of crossover in the direction of errors, rather complicated models have been introduced as to the distribution of attention. Neglect may be hypothesized to occur in representational process of a line or estimation of the midpoint on the formed image, or both. We devised a line image task using a computer display with a touch panel and approached the representational image of a line to be bisected. Three patients with typical left neglect were presented with a line and forced to see its whole extent with cueing to the left endpoint. After disappearance of the line, they pointed to the right endpoint, the left endpoint, or the subjective midpoint according to their representational image. The line image between the reproduced right and left endpoints was appropriately formed for the 200 mm lines. However, the images for the shorter 25 and 100 mm lines were longer than the physical lengths with overextension to the left side. These results proved the context effect that short lines may be perceived longer when they are presented in combination with longer lines. One of our patients had an extensive lesion that involved the frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes, and the other two had a lesion restricted to the posterior right hemisphere. The image for a fully perceived line may be represented far enough into left space even when left neglect occurs after a lesion that involves the right parietal lobe. The patients with neglect placed the subjective midpoint rightward from the centre of the stimulus line for the 100 and 200 mm lines and leftward for the 25 mm lines. This crossover of bisection errors disappeared when the displacement of the subjective midpoint was measured from the centre of the representational line image. Left neglect may occur consistently in estimation of the subjective midpoint on the representational image, which may be explained by a simple rightward bias of attentional distribution.     

Line versus representational bisections in unilateral spatial neglect

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the mechanisms of left unilateral spatial neglect found in the bisection of lines after cueing to the left end point and to determine whether neglect occurs for the mental representation of a line. METHODS: A new representational bisection task was developed to eliminate the influence of the right segment of the physical line that would attract attention. Eight patients with typical left unilateral spatial neglect underwent line and representational bisection tasks on a computer display with a touch panel. In the line bisection with cueing, they bisected a line after touching the left end point. In the representational bisection, the patients were presented with a line until they touched the left end point. On the blank display, they pointed to the subjective midpoint of the erased line. The performances of the two bisection tasks were compared when the length and position of stimulus lines were varied. RESULTS: The rightward errors in the representational bisection were greater than or equivalent to those in the line bisection with cueing. The effect of line length in which the errors became greater for the longer lines was equally found in the line bisection with cueing and the representational bisection. This was confirmed in the condition where the right end point was placed at a fixed position and the line length was varied. CONCLUSIONS: After cueing to the left end point, rightward bisection errors of patients with neglect are not caused by overattention to the right segment of the physical line. Left neglect occurs mainly for the mental representation formed at the time of cueing or seeing the whole extent of a line.     

Conflict and integration of spatial attention between disconnected hemispheres

OBJECTIVES: To clarify how the disconnected hemispheres perceive a line and bisect it with successful or unsuccessful integration of spatial attention. METHODS: Eye movements were recorded when a patient with an extensive callosa infarction bisected horizontal lines. The lesion extended into the left cingulate gyrus. RESULTS: When the patient bisected lines with the right hand, the gaze was initially directed rightward and shifted further to the right side with the execution of manual response, which resulted in rightward errors. Shortly after bisection, rapid ocular searches occurred to the left side, whereas the rightward errors did not decrease throughout the trials. When using the left hand, there was no deviation of the gaze before presentation of lines. In the first few trials, the patient bisected the line with a leftward error and then searched rapidly to the right side. The subsequent bisections were almost accurate, as the subjective midpoint was placed near the point of the initial fixation that fell around the true centre. Ocular searching was mostly absent during and after line bisection. CONCLUSIONS: In callosa disconnection, left unilateral spatial neglect may appear when use of the right hand induces a rightward bias in the attentional control of the left hemisphere and damage to its cingulate gyrus inhibits interhemispheric integration of attention. Resultant rightward errors of line bisection often cause interhemispheric conflict of attention, as the right hemisphere perceives the longer extent on the left side. By contrast, the disconnected but intact right hemisphere may bisect a line accurately by integrating attention to the extents perceived in the left and right visual fields.     

Crossover is not a consequence of neglect: a test of the orientation/estimation hypothesis.

Most patients with neglect demonstrate a crossover effect on line bisection. Crossover refers to a pattern of performance in which long lines (>10 cm) are bisected ipsilateral to brain injury and short lines (<2 cm) are bisected contralateral to brain injury. Crossover bisections on short lines are of interest because they are not predicted by contemporary theories concerning neglect. However, we propose that the effect depends on two independent factors that normally influence bisection performance but are merely exaggerated in neglect--a tendency to overestimate the length of short lines and underestimate long lines and a tendency to orient attention preferentially in one spatial direction. We predicted that both patients with unilateral left and right hemisphere injury would demonstrate crossover on line bisection and that they would overestimate short lines and underestimate long lines upon direct visual inspection. Further, the 2 groups were predicted to demonstrate crossover in opposite directions owing to different lesion-induced biases in attentional orientation. Testing 5 patients with right hemisphere injury and 7 patients with left hemisphere injury confirmed each prediction. Additionally, errors in length estimation were exaggerated among patients with right hemisphere injury, most of whom had neglect. It is concluded that while crossover is accentuated in cases of neglect, it is not a consequence of neglect per se. As such, crossover bisections are not at odds with contemporary neglect theory.     

Context and crossover in unilateral neglect

Patients with left-neglect bisect horizontal lines to the right of true center. Their bisection bias is affected by line length, so that longer lines are bisected further to the right. Patients often crossover and bisect very short lines to the left of true center. We tested the hypothesis that the context in which lines are apprehended accounts for the crossover phenomenon. We replicated previous findings that a line is bisected further leftward when it is preceded by a longer line and further rightward when it is preceded by a shorter line. These contextual effects occur with relatively short and relatively long target lines. Bisection patterns in two different series of lines, one ranging from 10 to 150 mm, and the other from 110 to 250 mm, were investigated. If crossover bisections were simply due to contextual effects then left-sided errors would be observed on bisections of the shorter lines of both series. Our findings did not support this hypothesis. Crossover bisections occurred only with objectively short lines, those shorter than 40 mm. Even though we found significant contextual effects on line bisection biases, these effects per se do not account for the crossover phenomenon. Rather, our data suggest that the absolute length of the line is associated specifically with the crossover phenomenon.     

Positive correlation in the bisection of long and short horizontal Oppel-Kundt illusory gradients: Implications for the interpretation of the "cross-over" effect in spatial neglect

Right brain damaged patients with left spatial neglect typically bisect long horizontal lines to the right of their midpoint. However, bisections of very short lines can favour the emergence of a paradoxical “cross-over” effect in which lines are bisected to the left of the true midpoint. It has been suggested that in healthy participants similar variations in the position of the subjective line midpoint can be observed in the bisections of long and short Oppel–Kundt (O-K) illusory gradients (Savazzi et al., 2007). This analogy was taken as proof that patients with neglect suffer a distorted representation of horizontal space that is equivalent to illusory distortions that O-K gradients induce in the intact brain (Savazzi et al., 2007). In contrast to this proposal, however, it has been noted that reversal of O-K illusion with short gradients was never described in literature (Doricchi et al., 2008). To resolve this incongruence, it was argued that such a reversal can be observed in healthy participants showing strong conventional illusory effects with long gradients (Savazzi, 2008). This proposal suggests that the greater the shift in the conventional direction of the illusion for long gradients, the greater the shift in the opposite direction with equivalent short gradients (i.e., negative correlation). Here we tested this hypothesis in a sample of 100 healthy participants who bisected horizontal O-K illusory gradients of different lengths (2, 4, 8 and 16 cm). We found no reversal of O-K illusion with short gradients and a positive, rather than negative, correlation between bisection of long and short gradients. Participants showing strong illusory effects in the bisection of long gradients showed analogous effects in the bisection of very short ones. These findings do not support the space anisometry interpretation of line bisection performance and the cross-over effect in patients with neglect.     

Ineffective leftward search in line bisection and mechanisms of left unilateral spatial neglect

We examined the eye-fixation pattern of a patient with severe left unilateral spatial neglect who showed leftward searches of various extent in more than half of line bisection trials. Because of complete left homonymous hemianopia, he perceived only the segment of the line between its right endpoint and the point of the leftmost fixation. In the trials with leftward searches, he frequently placed the subjective midpoint on the right part of the perceived segment. In the trials without leftward searches, he placed it near the left extreme point of the perceived segment. For all these bisections, the subjective midpoint was constantly placed far to the right of the true midpoint of the line irrespective of the length perceived. We consider that in severe left unilateral spatial neglect, rightward attentional bias is the predominant factor that determines where to place the subjective midpoint. Transient attentional shift to the left may produce leftward searches, but it does not induce effective processing of line bisection.     

Processing of illusion of length in spatial hemineglect: a study of line bisection

Bisection of horizontal lines and of the Brentano form of the Müller-Lyer illusion was investigated in six right brain-damaged patients with left spatial hemineglect, and in six control subjects. Patients bisected the lines to the right of the objective mid-point. Comparable illusory effects on line bisection were however found in both patients and control subjects. Relative to the baseline condition, in both groups the subjective midpoint was displaced towards the side expanded by the illusion, both leftwards and rightwards. By contrast, line length and spatial position of the stimulus had differential effects. In neglect patients, the rightward bisection error increased disproportionately with line length, and when the stimulus was located in the left, neglected, side of egocentric space. Control subjects showed no such effects. The suggestion is made that the visual, non-egocentric, processes underlying these illusory effects of length may be spared in patients with left spatial neglect. The possible neural basis of this dissociation is discussed.     

Leftward search in left unilateral spatial neglect.

The authors' previous study with an eye camera revealed that when asked to mark the centre of a line patients with left unilateral spatial neglect persist in fixating a point on its right part and place the subjective midpoint there without searching leftwards. The present study examined the patterns of leftward search of nine patients with left unilateral spatial neglect when they were required to search for the left endpoint of the line after the bisection. The patients could search leftwards beyond the subjective midpoint to place the mark at the subjective left endpoint. The initial fixation in this search always fell near the point located to the left of the subjective midpoint by the distance between the subjective midpoint and the right endpoint of the line. In patients with severe neglect the search further to the left of this point was laborious and fell short of the true left endpoint in about 80% of the trials. Our results suggest that when asked to bisect a line patients with left unilateral spatial neglect subjectively see the line as it extends equally to either side of the point where they are going to mark the subjective midpoint.     

Ipsilesional versus contralesional neglect depends on attentional demands

Right hemisphere injuries often produce contralesional hemispatial neglect (CN). In contrast to CN, some patients with right hemisphere damage can also show so-called ipsilesional neglect (IN). Previous reports found that patients tend to show IN on line bisection tasks but CN on other tasks such as target cancellation. To learn why these two tasks induce different spatial biases in patients with right hemisphere injury, conventional (i.e. solid) line bisection was compared with two novel bisection tasks consisting of horizontally aligned strings of characters. The subjects' task was to mark a target character that was at or closest to the true midpoint of the simulated line. Four of the 5 patients showed a dissociation whereby IN occurred for solid lines while CN was observed on character lines. The two patients assessed with an antisaccade paradigm showed a "visual grasp" for leftward stimuli. The present results suggest that neglect on line bisection may reflect two opposing forces, an approach behavior or "visual grasp" toward left hemispace and an attentional bias toward right hemispace.     

Rightward bisection errors for letter lines: the role of semantic information

When bisecting words in their middle, people reveal leftward bisection errors. This tendency might emerge from an attentional bias towards the beginning of the word. However, when longer meaningless letter strings are presented, people reveal a rightward bisection bias. To test the role of semantic information on leftward or rightward bisection biases, we tested letter line bisection performance in healthy right-handed students in four independent experiments. A third of the letter lines contained an embedded four-letter word to the left of true centre, another third contained an embedded four-letter word to the right of true centre, while the remaining lines contained no words. Half of these words were emotional words, the other half were neutral words. Results across experiments revealed a stronger rightward bisection bias: (i) for letter lines containing emotional as compared to neutral words, (ii) for letter lines containing words in the left as compared to right half of the lines, and (iii) for those experiments in which the spatial position of letter lines remained within a narrow body-centred space. Findings from this study suggest that letter line bisection performance might be only minimally determined by visuo-spatial attention. Rather, letter line perception might activate the left hemisphere more than the right hemisphere, shifting the subjective midpoint to the right of true centre. Leftward bisection biases for words only, as had been described in the literature, may thus have resulted from automated reading strategies rather than from attentional biases towards the left hemispace.     

Neglect-associated constructional disorders: a paradoxical phenomenon?

Five neglect patients without diffuse cognitive impairment or overt constructional disabilities were asked to bisect lines and rectangles and to copy rectangles bisected in their midplane. As a group, patients showed the usual rightward bias in bisecting lines and a milder deviation in bisecting horizontally-aligned rectangles, but showed a leftward deviation of the subjective midline in the copying task. This was due to drawing the left half shorter with respect to normal controls but three patients also drew the right half longer (the total length was the same as that of controls). A possible interpretation of rectangle copying results in these three patients is that they could create a representation of the stimulus to be copied accurately enough to reproduce its total length correctly but the subjective distribution of right and left space within that representation was unbalanced. However, specific experimental work is needed to verify why our patients with mild to moderate unilateral spatial neglect overrepresented the left side in a line bisection task and underrepresented it in a copying task.     

Unilateral spatial neglect in AD: significance of line bisection performance

BACKGROUND: Unilateral spatial neglect has been rarely reported in patients with AD, although they often have right and left asymmetry of temporoparietal dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if patients with AD would show unilateral spatial neglect in the line bisection test, and to reveal the relationship between their neglect and the area of cerebral dysfunction. Method: Thirty-two patients with mild to moderate AD and 32 age-matched healthy control subjects underwent an extensive line bisection test. SPECT was also obtained for the patients. RESULTS: Rightward bisection errors exceeded the normal range in 25% of patients with AD. They exhibited greater rightward errors for the longer lines in the left hemispace than in the right hemispace, and with the right hand than with the left hand; this corresponds to the characteristics of neglect seen after right hemisphere lesions. All patients who bisected 200 mm lines with errors over 10 mm showed disproportionate lowering of performance IQ and asymmetric right hemisphere hypoperfusion, especially in the temporoparietal region. Seventy-five percent of the patients performed normally in the center presentation but erred slightly toward the body midline in the right and left hemispaces. CONCLUSION: Left unilateral spatial neglect in mild to moderate AD may be rather common if tested with the line bisection test. Rightward errors over 10 mm suggest right temporoparietal dysfunction. In AD, three or more bisections of 200 mm lines in the center presentation are recommended for detection of neglect. Patients with AD but without neglect may have difficulty in shifting attention into the peripheral sector of the egocentric space.     

Triangular backgrounds shift the bias of line bisection performance in hemispatial neglect

OBJECTIVE: Patients with left neglect on line bisection show normal implicit sensitivity to manipulations of both the stimulus and the visual background. Three experiments were designed to define this sensitivity more exactly. METHODS: Normal controls and patients with left neglect performed a series of horizontal line bisection tasks. Independent variables were the configurations of the backgrounds for the line-rectangle, square, circle, left and right pointing isosceles triangles-and whether the background was the shape of the piece of paper or an outline drawn on a standard piece of paper. In a separate experiment different components of the triangle were outlined on a piece of paper. Deviation from true midpoint was calculated. RESULTS: Simply placing the target lines in a symmetric background such as a square or circle did not reliably reduce neglect. A triangle asymmetric in the horizontal plane caused a shift in bisection away from the triangle's vertex. With right pointing triangles the perceived midpoint shifted to the left of true centre (crossed over). The effects of the triangles were comparable in the patients and the controls when controlled for baseline bisection bias. The critical components of the triangles were the angular legs. This effect of background was not influenced by lesion site or by hemianopia. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with left visual neglect remain sensitive to covert manipulations of the visual background that implicitly shift the perceived midpoint of a horizontal line. This effect is strong enough to eliminate neglect on a bisection task. The mechanism of this effect is expressed through preattentive visual capacities.     

Context effects in pseudo‐neglect measured with a free vision Landmark task

Previous studies have shown that neglect patients exhibit a crossover effect on free vision line‐bisection tasks; they place the cross mark too far right for long lines, but too far left for short lines. This is partially determined by the relative line length within a block of testing. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the crossover that has been observed in normal participants might also be due to the context in which the line is presented. All participants were tested on the free vision Landmark task, in which they were shown a line that had been correctly bisected, and asked whether the cross mark appeared to be too far to the left or too far to the right. In Study 1 half of the participants were exposed only to short lines (1–8 cm) and half were exposed only to long lines (8–28 cm). Unlike the results for neglect patients, performance appeared to be influenced only by the actual length of the line, not the relative length. In Study 2 the background on which the lines were presented was manipulated. For half of the trials the line appeared on the standard US legal‐sized paper. For the other half the width of the background was doubled. Unexpectedly, no crossover occurred for the wide field width. The results of Study 1 suggest that normal participants may be less influenced by context than neglect patients. The results of Study 2 suggest that the crossover effect may be influenced by some type of interaction between the line itself and the background on which it is presented.     

Line bisection in visuo-spatial neglect: disproof of a conjecture

We describe two patients with left neglect who show a linear relationship between the magnitude of their line bisection displacements and the veridical length of the line presented. For lines smaller than those typically employed in previous investigations, the patients' mean performance is fairly accurate; with even smaller lines, the direction of displacement crosses over true centre to give a leftward displacement ('right neglect'). In both cases, the slope of the regression line falsifies the conjecture that (intact) left hemisphere mechanisms (correctly) bisect the (subtotal or supertotal) line length that is available in right hemispace.     

How do patients with neglect see a horizontal line?

Abstract. Twelve patients with left unilateral spatial neglect were examined with a newly devised coloured line bisection task. They were presented with a horizontal line printed in blue on one side and in red on the other side; the proportions of the blue and red segments were varied. Immediately after placement of the subjective midpoint, the line was concealed and the patients were asked to name the colours of the right and left ends. Five patients who identified the left-end colour almost correctly had no visual field defect, while the other seven whose colour naming was impaired on the left side had left visual field defect. The rightward bisection errors were similarly distributed in the fair and poor colour-naming patients except for two patients from the latter group. The lesions of the fair colour-naming patients spared the lingual and fusiform gyri, which are known to be engaged in colour processing. Patients with neglect whose visual field is preserved may neglect the leftward extension of a line but not the colour in the neglected space. The poor colournaming patients frequently failed to name the left-end colour that appeared to the left of their subjective midpoint, which indicates that they hardly searched leftward beyond that point. In such trials, they reported that the left end had the same colour as the right end. The results suggest that in patients with neglect and left visual field defect, both the leftward extent and the colour of a line may be represented on the basis of the information from the attended right segment.     

Extinction, working memory, and line bisection in spatial neglect.

The authors studied four patients with spatial neglect, using a task in which lines contain an off-centered bisection mark and a task in which the right and left segments of these bisected lines are presented independently and sequentially. In the prebisected line task, subjects reported the position of the bisection. In the segments task, subjects compared the length of the segments. Accuracy was greater with the sequential presentation of line segments, suggesting that an extinction-like phenomenon plays a role in line bisection bias.