A kinematic analysis of distractor interference effects during visually guided action in spatial neglect.

Patients with left spatial neglect following right hemisphere damage may show anomalies in ipsilesional-limb movements directed to targets on their affected side, in addition to their characteristic perceptual deficits. In this study we examined the extent to which visually guided movements made by neglect patients are susceptible to interference from concurrent visual distractors on the contralesional or ipsilesional side of a designated target. Eleven right hemisphere patients with visual neglect, plus 11 matched healthy controls, performed a double-step movement task upon a digitizing tablet, using their ipsilesional hand to respond. On each double-step trial the first component of the movement was cued to a common central target, whereas the second component was cued unpredictably to a target on either the contralesional or ipsilesional side. On separate trials lateral targets either appeared alone or together with a concurrent distractor in an homologous location in the opposite hemispace. In addition to being significantly slower and more error prone than controls, neglect patients also exhibited a number of interference effects from ipsilesional distractors. They often failed to move to left targets in the presence of a right-sided distractor, or else they moved to the distractor itself rather than to a contralesional target. The initial accelerative phase of their movements to contralesional targets tended to be interrupted prematurely, and they spent significantly more time in the terminal guidance phase of movements to contralesional targets in the presence of an ipsilesional distractor. In contrast, contralesional distractors had little effect on patients' movements to ipsilesional targets. We conclude that right hemisphere damage induces a competitive bias that favors actions to ipsilesional targets. This bias affects multiple stages of processing within the visuomotor system, from initial programming through to the final stages of terminal guidance.     

Right hemispatial ipsilesional neglect with chronic right hemisphere strokes

Background: Patients who present with spatial neglect after stroke often perform normally on tests for neglect after a few weeks. Whereas tests for neglect are often performed directly in front of a patient, in their actual environments many important stimuli may be present within their left or right hemispace. The presence and severity of neglect often depends on the hemisphere injured. It is possible, in chronic stroke, for spatial judgments to be influenced by an interaction of stroke laterality and the spatial location of stimuli. The objective of this study was to learn if unilateral hemispheric chronic strokes contribute to a spatial bias with laterally presented stimuli.

Method: There were 70 participants, 62 with unilateral chronic strokes (>6 months post onset) including 35 with left hemisphere damage (LHD), 27 with right hemisphere damage (RHD), and 8 demographically similar people without history of stroke. Participants were asked to bisect 300 lines presented with distractors on the left, right, or both sides of the line, or no distractor, on a touch-screen monitor in right, center or left hemispace.

Results: There was a significant interaction between the side of the hemispheric lesion and the side of the body where these lines were presented. Specifically, in right space, patients with RHD deviated leftward in comparison to the other groups. Furthermore, there was an interaction between group and distractor induced bias. All three groups approached the left distractor, and the patients with LHD also approached the right distractor.

Conclusions: Although spatial neglect is more severe in contralesional than ipsilesional hemispace in the period immediately following a stroke, over time patients with RHD may develop ipsilesional neglect that is more severe in ipsilesional than contralesional space. The mechanism underlying this bias is not known and may be related to attempted compensation or the development of a contralateral attentional/intentional grasp.     

Left hemispatial neglect with a splenial lesion

ABSTRACT

With injury of the anterior two-thirds of the corpus callosum, each hemisphere’s attentional bias to contralateral hemispace becomes manifest with each hand deviating ipsilaterally during line bisection tasks. Patients with infarctions in the right posterior cerebral artery distribution with occipital and splenial damage can also exhibit spatial neglect. The goal of this report is to learn the role of the splenium of the corpus callosum in mediating visuospatial attention. A right-handed woman with Marchiafava-Bignami disease and damage to the splenium of her corpus callosum without evidence of a mesial frontal, parietal, or occipital injury was assessed for spatial neglect with line bisections. When bisecting lines in her left hemispace with her right hand, she deviated to the right, but revealed no major deviations when the line was place in the midline, in right hemispace, or when bisecting lines with her left hand. This patient provides evidence that damage to the splenium can induce a special form of asymmetrical spatial neglect. This asymmetry might be related to the disconnected right hemisphere’s ability to allocate attention to both right and left hemispaces with the disconnected left hemisphere’s ability to allocate attention to the right but not left hemispace.     

The effect of space location on neglect depends on the nature of the task

It has been often reported that in patients with visual neglect line bisection is more accurate in the right than in the left hemispace. However, no data are available on the effect of hemispace on reading errors associated with neglect. We examined a 62-year-old man who presented with severe left neglect following a large infarction in the right cerebral hemisphere. The patient was asked to read 180 words aloud and to bisect 90 lines. Stimuli were presented in three different spatial locations: across the centre, to the right or to the left of the body midline. Line bisection was significantly more accurate in the right hemispace compared with the centre, or the left hemispace. In contrast, reading was significantly more accurate with words presented on the left side than on the centre or right side. This is the first time that such dissociation has been reported. We hypothesize that the dissociation depends on the nature of the stimuli and on the different cognitive demands of the tasks.     

Spatio-motor cueing in unilateral left neglect: the role of hemispace, hand and motor activation.

Reported beneficial effects of left arm activation on neglect are experimentally examined. The present study of a subject with left visual neglect compared left hand finger movement with an instruction to visually anchor perception on the left arm during letter cancellation. Only the finger movements significantly reduced neglect. Another comparison was between "out of sight" finger movements of the left hand in left and right hemispace, respectively. Only left hemispace "blind" finger movements significantly reduced neglect compared to the standard condition. Thirdly, blind left finger movements in left hemispace were compared with passive visual cueing (reading a changing number) and again it was found that only the finger movements reduced neglect. Finally, right finger movements in left hemispace were compared with left finger movements in left hemispace: only the latter reduced neglect. The implications of these findings for theory and therapy of neglect are discussed.     

Directional hypokinesia: prolonged reaction times for leftward movements in patients with right hemisphere lesions and neglect

Patients with hemispatial neglect perform activities poorly in the hemispace contralateral to the lesion. We postulate that hemispatial neglect induced by right hemisphere lesions may be associated with a directional hypokinesia: initiation of movements toward the hemispace contralateral to the lesion is affected more than movements toward the lesion. We tested 6 patients with hemispatial neglect caused by right hemisphere damage, 7 with left hemisphere damage and no neglect, and 12 controls. Patients with left hemispatial neglect initiated responses to left hemispace more slowly than toward right hemispace.     

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.     

Impact of dynamic bottom-up features and top-down control on the visual exploration of moving real-world scenes in hemispatial neglect

Patients with hemispatial neglect are severely impaired in orienting their attention to contralesional hemispace. Although motion is one of the strongest attentional cues in humans, it is still unknown how neglect patients visually explore their moving real-world environment. We therefore recorded eye movements at bedside in 19 patients with hemispatial neglect following acute right hemisphere stroke, 14 right-brain damaged patients without neglect and 21 healthy control subjects. Videos of naturalistic real-world scenes were presented first in a free viewing condition together with static images, and subsequently in a visual search condition. We analyzed number and amplitude of saccades, fixation durations and horizontal fixation distributions. Novel computational tools allowed us to assess the impact of different scene features (static and dynamic contrast, colour, brightness) on patients' gaze. Independent of the different stimulus conditions, neglect patients showed decreased numbers of fixations in contralesional hemispace (ipsilesional fixation bias) and increased fixation durations in ipsilesional hemispace (disengagement deficit). However, in videos left-hemifield fixations of neglect patients landed on regions with particularly high dynamic contrast. Furthermore, dynamic scenes with few salient objects led to a significant reduction of the pathological ipsilesional fixation bias. In visual search, moving targets in the neglected hemifield were more frequently detected than stationary ones. The top-down influence (search instruction) could neither reduce the ipsilesional fixation bias nor the impact of bottom-up features. Our results provide evidence for a strong impact of dynamic bottom-up features on neglect patients' scanning behaviour. They support the neglect model of an attentional priority map in the brain being imbalanced towards ipsilesional hemispace, which can be counterbalanced by strong contralateral motion cues. Taking into account the lack of top-down control in neglect patients, bottom-up stimulation with moving real-world stimuli may be a promising candidate for future neglect rehabilitation schemes.     

Lateralization and interhemispheric integration of directed attention]

Directed attention is a function to direct and shift the focus of awareness adequately to behaviorally relevant sensory events. Healthy subjects direct attention evenly to right and left hemispaces. Unilateral spatial neglect is a failure to respond normally to stimuli on the side opposite a cerebral lesion, which is considered to represent a unilateral disruption of directed attention. The established clinical observation that neglect usually occurs after right hemisphere lesions and the results of functional imaging studies suggest the right hemisphere dominance for directed attention. It is hypothesized that the right hemisphere distributes attention to space bilaterally, whereas the left hemisphere distributes attention primarily to right hemispace. However, patients with callosotomy show no apparent neglect with either right or left hand. Ishiai et al. (2001) reported detailed analyses of eye movements when a patient with a callosal infarction bisected lines. 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. 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.     

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.     

Hand-centered attentional and motor asymmetries in unilateral neglect

On several accounts of "selection for action", acting on a target object among distractors requires that irrelevant inputs and responses to these inputs are inhibited, and relevant inputs and responses selected. In unilateral neglect associated with right-hemisphere lesions, selection processes may be biased toward stimuli on the right, as right is usually defined by head and body hemispace. In normal subjects performing reaching-to-target tasks, selection may be "hand-centered" (Tipper S., Lortie C., Baylis G.C., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18(4) (1992) 891-905) in that distractor stimuli close to the hand compete strongly with the target for the control of action, causing greater interference than distractors far from the hand. We reasoned that in the context of a reaching task, a left-right asymmetry in unilateral neglect may be defined with respect to the position of the hand. This predicts that target and distractor stimuli to the left of hand (i.e. requiring leftward movements for contact) should compete less strongly for the control of action than stimuli to the right of the hand. We tested this hypothesis by asking eight patients with unilateral neglect (and 12 healthy controls) to reach to central targets presented alone and with surrounding distractors from left or right start positions. Patients with neglect, but not controls, were slower to initiate reaches from right start as compared to left start positions. In this context, patients showed interference from distractors to the right of the hand and facilitation from distractors to the left of the hand. This indicates that a left-right selection asymmetry in neglect may be hand-centered. These data can be explained on a model of damage to the portion of a distributed neuronal population coding movement vectors to stimuli in relatively leftward locations.     

Ipsilesional intentional neglect and the effect of cueing

BACKGROUND: Contralesional hemispatial neglect may be induced by an attentional deficit where patients are inattentive to or unaware of stimuli in contralesional hemispace, an intentional deficit where patients are unable to act in or towards contralesional hemispace, or both. The deficits associated with ipsilesional neglect have not been as well characterized. Because cueing may be used as a rehabilitative assistive device, we wanted to learn whether the efficacy of an attentional or intentional cue was related to the type of bias. METHODS: We studied a patient with a right frontotemporal stroke who had ipsilesional neglect by using a video apparatus that dissociates sensory-attentional and motor-intentional systems. We also performed a cueing experiment with primarily sensory-attentional cues (i.e., read the letter at the end of the line) and primarily motor-intentional cues (i.e., touch the end of the line). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Ipsilesional neglect was primarily a motor-intentional deficit with a motor-action bias to the left and a secondary sensory-attentional bias for stimuli to the right. With cueing we found a double dissociation: the rightwards motor-intentional cue improved the primary left-sided intentional bias and the leftwards sensory-attentional cue improved the secondary right-sided attentional bias. Effective rehabilitation strategies need to address both sensory-attentional and motor-intentional deficits in patients with neglect.     

Left unilateral neglect or right hyperattention?

BACKGROUND: Contradictory interpretations of left unilateral neglect suggest that it reflects either decreased attention toward the left or increased attention toward the right. According to the right-hyperattention postulate, increasing severity of neglect should result from an increasingly stronger bias toward the right. Thus, response times to right-sided targets should become progressively faster as neglect increases in severity across patients. The left-hypoattention postulate predicts that as neglect increases, progressively less-attentional resources are deployed in both hemispaces. Thus, response times to right targets should progressively increase with increasing neglect. METHODS: We analyzed the distribution of manual response times to left- and right-sided targets in 24 patients with right hemisphere lesions and varying degrees of left neglect. RESULTS: Not only the responses to left targets but also those to right targets became progressively slower as neglect increased, consistent with the hypoattention account. However, the two regression lines were not parallel. With increasing neglect, responses to left targets increased more steeply than those to right targets did. CONCLUSIONS: A rightward attentional bias is present in patients with left neglect, together with left hypoattention. However, this rightward bias is one of defective, and not enhanced, attention.     

Multiple object tracking and pupillometry reveal deficits in both selective and intensive attention in unilateral spatial neglect

Introduction: Unilateral spatial neglect is typically associated with a spatial attention deficit, as neglect patients fail to respond to objects in their contralesional hemispace. However, growing evidence suggests that also nonspatial attention impairments (e.g., arousal) play a role and influences the recovery from this syndrome.

Method: Nonspatial and spatial attentional functions were assessed in 13 right-hemisphere stroke patients with neglect, 13 right-hemisphere stroke patients without neglect, and 26 healthy control participants, by investigating pupillary responses and performance on a multiple object tracking task (MOT)—that is, a dynamic task of divided attention where cognitive load can be manipulated precisely. The task was alternately presented in the left and right hemispace to assess spatial attention functioning.

Results: Results revealed smaller pupillary dilations in both patient groups than in controls, suggesting reduced attentional resources or arousal, and while patients without neglect and controls revealed significant effects of cognitive load on their pupillary responses, neglect patients did not. Both MOT and visual search (VS) tasks revealed spatial symptoms of neglect, while MOT performance measures additionally indicated reduced cognitive functioning in the ipsilateral hemispace. Moreover, the MOT task revealed severely reduced divided attention in neglect patients, as they only managed to track one target in the contralesional hemispace and occasionally two targets at the time in the ipsilesional hemispace.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that a stroke may lead to reduced attentional resources. Furthermore, as neglect patients showed no indications in their pupillary responses that they were able to regulate the allocation of resources in accordance with the varying task demands, it appears they additionally had impaired mechanisms for adjusting arousal levels. Our findings suggest that neglect involves nonspatial as well as spatial attention impairments, as also ipsilesional performance was reduced in this group.     

Hemispheric lateralization of cerebral blood-flow changes during selective listening to dichotically presented continuous speech

Regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) was measured with positron emission tomography (PET) while subjects were selectively listening to continuous speech delivered to one ear and ignoring concurrent speech delivered to the opposite ear, as well as concurrent text or letter strings running on a screen. rCBF patterns associated with selective listening either to the left-ear or right-ear speech message were compared with each other and with rCBF patterns in two visual-attention conditions in which the subjects ignored both speech messages and either read the text or discriminated the meaningless letter strings moving on the screen. Attention to either speech message was associated with enhanced activity in the superior temporal cortex of the language-dominant left hemisphere, as well as in the superior and middle temporal cortex of the right hemisphere suggesting enhanced processing of prosodic features in the attended speech. Moreover, enhanced activity during attention to either speech message was observed in the right parietal areas known to have an important role in directing spatial attention. Evidence was also found for attentional tuning of the left and right auditory cortices to select information from the contralateral auditory hemispace.     

Callosal neglect in hydrocephalus

A functional disconnection of the corpus callosum (CC) can induce a form of spatial neglect where each hand (e.g., left) when attempting to bisect lines in the opposite (e.g., right) hemispace deviates toward its own (e.g., left) hemispace. Patients with hydrocephalus often show thinning of the CC but callosal neglect has not been reported in this condition. Two right-handed patients with hydrocephalus and thinning of the CC, as well as six matched controls, were assessed for neglect by performing the line bisection task in left, right and center space with their right and left hands. When compared to controls neither patient, using either their right or left hands, demonstrated a bias in the center or left space conditions, but with lines in right space both subjects' left hand deviated significantly to the left. Thus, patients with hydrocephalic interhemispheric functional disconnection might show a form of callosal neglect. This hemispatial-hand asymmetry of deviation, however, also might be related to the disinhibition of the attentionally dominant right hemisphere.     

Laterally directed arm movements and right unilateral neglect after left hemisphere damage.

Signs of unilateral neglect for events occurring in one hemispace most often result from right hemisphere lesions. Right unilateral neglect after left hemisphere damage is much rarer, and has received less attention. The present study explores the relationships between right unilateral neglect and asymmetries in producing laterally directed arm movements in the horizontal plane in left brain-damaged (LBD) patients. Participants produced right- or left-directed arm movements with their left arm in response to centrally located visual stimuli. Results showed that LBD patients with signs of right unilateral neglect were consistently slowed when producing arm movements toward the right (neglected) side, as compared to left-directed movements. Taking into account patients with and without signs of neglect, this directional asymmetry positively correlated with a reaction-time measure of perceptual spatial bias. These findings stand in contrast with previous results obtained with the same experimental paradigm in right brain-damaged patients, in whom a consistent slowing of leftward-directed movements was rare and apparently unrelated to the presence and severity of left neglect. These conflicting results are discussed with respect to the hypothesis that different mechanisms may underlie left and right unilateral neglect.     

Vertical scanning biases and their possible influence on reading direction: celtic wisdom or folly?

The reason people read from top to bottom is unknown, but could be related to brain-mediated directional biases or environmental factors. To learn if there is a brain-mediated directional bias responsible for top-down reading direction, we evaluated the directional scanning in the vertical dimension by using directional letter and face cancellation tasks. Twenty participants were instructed to cancel either target letters or faces using either an up-down or down-up direction, with the stimuli located in left, right, and center hemispace. The results indicated significant differences in completion time between the search direction (up vs. down) and spatial position for the letter cancellation task, with a faster completion time for the bottom-up scan in right space and top-down in left space. Because the left hemisphere primarily attends to contralateral right hemispace our results suggest that, when attending to letter stimuli, the left hemisphere is biased to scan in a proximal to distal (upward) direction. Although the reasons why this is reversed in left hemispace and why we did not see directional biases in the face condition remains unclear, these results do suggest that the direction in which we learn to read is inconsistent with the brain's intrinsic directional bias.     

Cerebral hemispheric specialization for spatial attention: spatial distribution of search-related eye fixations in the absence of neglect

The "specialization" of the right hemisphere for spatial attention is widely accepted but poorly understood. While several theories have been supported by studies of patients with acute hemispatial neglect, generalizability beyond this population remains unclear. In this study, we compared the predictions of two attention models [Brain 119 (1996) 841; Trans. Am. Neurol. Assoc. 95 (1970) 143] when applied to data obtained from subjects with unilateral right- or left-cerebral lesions, but without clinical evidence of neglect during a visual search task. Both Left Lesion and Right Lesion subjects detected fewer targets in the contralesional hemispace. However, the Right Lesion subjects also made fewer visual fixations and longer saccades in the contralesional hemispace, suggesting a fundamental alteration in the architecture of visual search. The spatial distribution of fixations made by Right Lesion subjects more closely fits the prediction of a "salience" model than of the strict interpretation of a linear "gradient" model. These data support the long-standing notion of right hemisphere dominance for spatial attention, especially for the top-down processes entailed in self-directed visual search, and extend this to lesion patients without clinically evident neglect. A theoretical model based on the salience of extrapersonal space appears useful for understanding alterations of attentional allocation, particularly after recovery from stroke.     

Callosal Neglect in Hydrocephalus

A functional disconnection of the corpus callosum (CC) can induce a form of spatial neglect where each hand (e.g., left) when attempting to bisect lines in the opposite (e.g., right) hemispace deviates toward its own (e.g., left) hemispace. Patients with hydrocephalus often show thinning of the CC but callosal neglect has not been reported in this condition. Two right-handed patients with hydrocephalus and thinning of the CC, as well as six matched controls, were assessed for neglect by performing the line bisection task in left, right and center space with their right and left hands. When compared to controls neither patient, using either their right or left hands, demonstrated a bias in the center or left space conditions, but with lines in right space both subjects' left hand deviated significantly to the left. Thus, patients with hydrocephalic interhemispheric functional disconnection might show a form of callosal neglect. This hemispatial-hand asymmetry of deviation, however, also might be related to the disinhibition of the attentionally dominant right hemisphere.