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.     

Left visuo-spatial neglect: a meaningless entity?

Six patients with unilateral right hemisphere damage are reported. Each patient performed two tasks that are traditionally regarded as diagnostic for left (peripersonal) visuospatial neglect: target cancellation and horizontal line bisection. Two patients were unimpaired on both tasks, and two were impaired on both. The two remaining patients showed a classic (and reliable) double-dissociation between the tasks. One of the patients who scored within normal limits on both cancellation and bisection showed left sided omissions on representational drawing. We argue that these results question the validity of any unitary concept of unilateral visuo-spatial neglect in peripersonal space.     

Visual and Tactile Size Distortion in a Patient with Right Neglect

One typical feature of the neglect syndrome in patients with right hemisphere damage is that they bisect horizontal lines to the right of centre. It has been argued that to a large extent these bisection errors can be attributed to a perceptual change whereby the patient experiences the left half of a line as shorter than the right half, causing them to set the midpoint of the line towards the right. We describe here a patient with a left hemisphere lesion and rightward neglect, who consequently makes bisection errors in a leftward direction. We carried out a series of tests which confirmed that he shows a subjective visual distortion in the converse direction, i.e. a perception of horizontal extents on the right as shorter than extents on the left. We also found that he shows a similar distortion in his tactile perception. The association of visual and tactile distortions in this patient is compatible with the view that the distortion effects have a rather high-level origin. Multiple single-case studies will, however, be required to establish whether this association of deficits is typical, or whether visual and tactile size distortions are separable symptoms associated with neglect.     

Left on the right or viceversa: a case of "alternating" constructional allochiria

We describe a patient with an ischemic right frontal lesion and mild left neglect who showed a systematic tendency to transpose drawings on one side of the page, which varied depending on the starting point (left or right) of his graphic productions. When not specifically cued, the patient started to draw in the ipsilesional (right) side and tended to show allochiria on the right, but occasionally, or under specific instructions, the patient started drawing from the left side and then showed a complete reversion of his spatial transpositions. To clarify the basic mechanisms underlying such a peculiar constructional phenomenon, we performed a series of experimental investigations, including extended copying tasks, a clock-marking test (to mark the position of single hours on a clock-face), and a line bisection task with progressive left-toright or right-to-left stimulus presentation. Findings suggested that "alternating" allochiria in copying and drawing from memory tasks is an epiphenomenon of a basic inability to move attention and action away from the starting point of graphic productions. The present case study, contrasted with observations on other brain-damaged patients, demonstrates that allochiria may have different neuro-cognitive bases and offers new insights for theoretical interpretations of unilateral spatial neglect.     

Comparison of the Behavioural Inattention Test and the Catherine Bergego Scale in assessment of hemispatial neglect

The objective of the study was to correlate visual and behavioural assessments of hemispatial neglect caused by cerebrovascular accident. We assessed 17 consecutive right-hemisphere stroke patients with hemispatial neglect: the Catherine Bergego Scale (CBS) was used to evaluate neglect in spontaneous behaviour and the conventional subtests of the Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT C) were used to assess visual neglect. The proportional severity of both visual and behavioural neglect was calculated in each individual patient. Dissociations were found between mild neglect in visual screening tasks and moderate or severe neglect in behaviour, although in most patients, neglect was equally evident in both tests. Only the line bisection subtest from the BIT correlated significantly with the CBS, yet both tests showed good internal consistency. The line bisection test and several items of the CBS were especially sensitive in detecting the combination of visual field deficit and hemispatial neglect. In conclusion, we propose that visual fields should always be assessed in patients with neglect because neglect may be exacerbated by a visual field deficit and this can cause prolonged functional disability in everyday life situations. Specific rehabilitation methods might also be needed in neglect with or without hemianopia.     

Illusion processing in hemispatial neglect

Twelve patients with hemispatial neglect and two control groups were tested to examine the effects of the Müller-Lyer and Judd illusions on bisection behaviour. The studies were designed to investigate whether neglect patients were indeed unaware of the left sides of the illusory figures. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to describe the illusory figures prior to bisection, whereas in Experiment 2, they compared two illusions whose fins, in the critical condition, differed on the left and then performed the bisection. It was found that the illusions worked equally well in all three groups. Interestingly, apart from one exception, almost all neglect patients explicitly reported the left-sided fins in Experiment 1. Only five patients failed to do so but only on an average of 16% of trials. In Experiment 2, six patients made errors in the comparison task but four of these patients did not neglect any left-sided fins in Experiment 1 (with the exception of three overall trials for LC and EdR). This finding seems a good indication that the two tasks differ in their requirements. The comparison task may be perceived as harder as it requires discrimination rather than detection and thus lead to more neglect type errors than the bisection task. In one neglect patient, the illusions consistently failed to work. This patient presented with an occipito-temporal and basal ganglia lesion and the mechanisms responsible for the processing of simple visual features might have possibly been impaired in her case.     

Does spatial cueing affect line bisection in chronic hemianopia?

Patients with homonymous hemianopia often show a contralesional shift towards their blind field when bisecting horizontal lines ("hemianopic line bisection error", HLBE). The reasons for this spatial bias are not well understood and debated. Cueing of spatial attention modulates line bisection significantly in patients with visuospatial neglect. Moreover, recent evidence showed that attention training significantly improves deficits of visual search in hemianopia. Here, we tested in 20 patients with chronic homonymous hemianopia (10 left-sided, 10 right-sided) without visual neglect, 10 healthy control subjects, 10 neurological control patients, and 3 patients with left visuospatial neglect and leftsided hemianopia whether spatial cueing influences the HLBE. Subjects indicated verbally the midpoint of horizontal lines in a computerized line bisection task under four experimental cue positions (cue far left, mid-left, mid-right or far-right within the horizontal line). All 20 hemianopic patients showed the typical HLBE towards their blind field, while the two control samples showed only a small but significant leftward shift (pseudoneglect). None of the 4 cueing manipulations had a significant effect on the HLBE in the hemianopic patients. Moreover, no differential effects of cueing on line bisection results were obtained when analyzed in lesion subgroups of hemianopic patients with circumscribed occipital lesions (N=8) as contrasted with patients having more extended (occipito-temporal or temporal) lesions (N=12). This null-effect contrasts with marked cueing effects observed in 3 neglect patients with left hemianopia in the same tasks, showing the principal efficacy of our cueing manipulation. These results argue against attentional explanations of the HLBE.     

Ipsilesional 'where' with contralesional 'what' neglect

Whereas contralesional spatial neglect is usually caused by right temporo-parietal lesions, ipsilesional spatial neglect is induced primarily by right frontal lesions. This report describes a 73-year-old woman with a right inferior parietal lesion who on 'where' tasks (line bisection and midline pointing) demonstrated ipsilesional neglect, but on 'what' tests (gap vs. no-gap detection cancellation and clothing tape removal) demonstrated contralesional neglect. This 'what' and 'where' directional dissociation provides evidence for independent 'what' and 'where' attentional networks; however, the reason this parietal lesion causes this contralesional vs. ipsilesional spatial attentional 'what' and 'where' dichotomy remains to be determined.     

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.     

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.     

How to assess spatial neglect--line bisection or cancellation tasks?

Spatial neglect is usually assessed using cancellation tests or line bisection. A recent comparison of these tests has revealed a double dissociation, in which one neglect patient was impaired in line bisection but not in star cancellation whereas another showed the reverse deficit. This dissociation has prompted the question whether 'neglect' is still a meaningful theoretical entity. We compared line bisection and cancellation tasks regarding their accuracy in detecting spatial neglect. We tested 35 patients with well-defined spatial neglect using a line bisection task and four different cancellation tasks. The line bisection test missed 40% of our neglect patients. Far superior were the letter cancellation and bells tests, each of which missed only 6% of the cases. A deviation in line bisection is not fundamentally related to spatial neglect, but may also arise from other causes (e.g., hemianopia, or which hand is used), and therefore, should be treated with caution in clinical diagnosis. Cancellation tests, such as the bells test and letter cancellation, are more helpful tools to detect spatial neglect.     

Contralesional directional hypermetria associated with line bisection-specific ipsilesional neglect

Patients with contralesional neglect from right hemisphere injuries often fail to be aware of or respond to visual stimuli in the left hemispace. In contrast, other patients with right hemisphere damage rarely demonstrate behavior consistent with task-specific ipsilesional neglect (IN). We performed a series of experiments in a patient with IN on a line bisection task after a right frontal infarct. When asked to perform horizontal limb movements without visual feedback, the patient showed a leftward directional hypermetria. Similar performance was also observed during a representational production of a given distance without sensory input. These results suggest that IN is induced by a directional hypermetria resulting from disruption of the motor-intentional system.     

Do supine position and deprivation of visual environment influence spatial neglect?

It has been suggested that in spatial neglect, placing the patient in a supine position and performing tasks in the dark would reduce the rightward bias in line bisection and cancellation tasks. However, these findings remain debated and have not been extended to other tasks such as reading or visual exploration. Here, in the same study, we examined the effect of body position (BP) and visual environment (VE) on relatively ecological tests of spatial neglect. Among 17 patients with right-hemisphere stroke, 12 were neglect and five were non-neglect in clinical tests. They were compared with 12 healthy control participants in four tasks: line bisection, text reading, number reading, and visual exploration. Tasks were performed on a computer screen in two BP (sitting and supine) and two VE (light and dark) conditions. We found that placing patients in darkness reduced contralesional omissions in the visual exploratory task and, to a smaller extent, in number reading. Conversely, the supine position did not influence performance, and even resulted in cognitive slowing, especially in reading. In conclusion, we confirmed that reducing visual information can improve performance, but only to a limited extent. This justifies strict control of peripheral visual information when exploring neglect patients. Conversely, positioning neglect patients in the supine position can have a discrete negative effect on cognitive functioning, and this effect must be taken into account during therapy.     

The greyscales task: a perceptual measure of attentional bias following unilateral hemispheric damage

The two cerebral hemispheres in humans have been suggested to control contralaterally opposed attentional biases. These biases may be revealed by unilateral hemispheric damage, which often causes contralesional spatial neglect, particularly when the right hemisphere (RH) is affected. Subtle attentional biases have also been observed in normal observers in tasks requiring judgements of horizontal spatial extent, brightness, numerosity and size. Here, we examined attentional biases for judging the darker of two left-right mirror-reversed brightness gradients under conditions of free viewing (the greyscales task). We compared performances of patients with damage to the RH (n=78) and left hemisphere (LH; n=20) with those of normal controls (n=20). Controls showed a small but significant leftward bias, implying a subtle asymmetry favouring the RH. In contrast, RH and LH patients showed extreme rightward and leftward biases, respectively, both of which differed significantly from that of controls. For the patient groups, performance on clinical tests of neglect (cancellation and line bisection) did not predict their greyscales scores. Pathological biases were present in patients without clinical neglect or visual field defects, suggesting that the attentional bias measured by the greyscales task can be dissociated from clinical neglect and visual sensory loss. The greyscales task offers an efficient means of quantifying pathological attentional biases in unilateral lesion patients; it is easy to administer and score, and may be particularly useful for clinical trials of recovery and rehabilitation following stroke.     

"Mind the gap": the size-distance dissociation in visual neglect is a cueing effect

There is a growing body of evidence that the processes mediating the allocation of spatial attention within objects may be separable from those governing attentional distribution between objects. In the neglect literature, a related proposal has been made regarding the perception of (within-object) sizes and (between-object) distances. This proposal follows observations that, in size-matching and bisection tasks, neglect is more strongly expressed when patients are required to attend to the sizes of discrete objects than to the (unfilled) distances between objects. These findings are consistent with a partial dissociation between size and distance processing, but a simpler alternative must also be considered. Whilst a neglect patient may fail to explore the full extent of a solid stimulus, the estimation of an unfilled distance requires that both endpoints be inspected before the task can be attempted at all. The attentional cueing implicit in distance estimation tasks might thus account for their superior performance by neglect patients. We report two bisection studies that address this issue. The first confirmed, amongst patients with left visual neglect, a reliable reduction of rightward error for unfilled "gap" stimuli as compared with solid lines. The second study assessed the cause of this reduction, deconfounding the effects of stimulus type (lines vs. gaps) and attentional cueing, by applying an explicit cueing manipulation to line and gap bisection tasks. Under these matched cueing conditions, all patients performed similarly on line and gap bisection tasks, suggesting that the reduction of neglect typically observed for gap stimuli may be attributable entirely to cueing effects. We found no evidence that a spatial extent, once fully attended, is judged any differently according to whether it is filled or unfilled.     

Psychophysical properties of line bisection and body midline perception in unilateral neglect

Past research associated unilateral neglect with a systematic ipsilesional shift of the perceived position of the body midline; however, this was not confirmed by recent experiments. We used the constant stimuli method to control for potential artifacts intrinsic to the techniques used in previous studies. Body midline perception was measured in the visual and proprioceptive modalities in ten patients with left unilateral neglect, ten control patients and ten normal subjects and compared with a visual line bisection task, also using the constant stimuli method. Neglect patients showed a significant rightward bias in the line bisection task, but no consistent directional bias either in the proprioceptive or in the visual body midline task. These results clearly counter the association between neglect and an ipsilesional shift of the body midline. However, in the body midline tasks neglect patients made more errors in judgement on both sides of their subjective midline, both with respect to the control groups and with respect to the line bisection task. This may imply that a specific impairment of body-centered representations is indeed present and manifests as a non directional increase in response variability, rather than as a systematic shift. It is suggested that body- and object-related tasks (such as line bisection) may be processed by independent cognitive computations. This interpretation is discussed with reference to a recent neuroimaging study investigating the same kinds of tasks.     

Dissociated long lasting improvements of straight-ahead pointing and line bisection tasks in two hemineglect patients.

In this experiment, we evaluated over a longer time period the previously demonstrated effects of a short prism adaptation on hemispatial neglect. We followed two patients (PE and SA), during a period of 5 days (1 day before and 4 days after the prism adaptation procedure), repeatedly measuring their performances on a straight-ahead pointing task and a line bisection task. We also assessed the comparative temporal evolution of the rightward biased egocentric reference frame (as measured by the straight-ahead demonstration) and a classical neuropsychological symptom of neglect, namely the rightward bias observed on line bisection. Firstly, the results showed that prismatic effect could be maintained for 4 days, on the two tasks (separately straight-ahead for PE, line bisection for SA). This long-term effect implies a very profound action of prism adaptation based on active processes and opens large possibilities for clinical applications. Secondly, no correlation was found between the evolution of the performances on the two tasks, neither for patient PE, nor for patient SA (within-subject double-dissociation). Moreover, a double-dissociation between subjects was demonstrated on long-term effects. A new conception has thus to be found to explain the various symptoms manifested in neglect and more investigations have to be performed in order to establish to what extent they can be considered independent. It can be concluded that elucidating the mechanism through which prism adaptation affects neglect could lead to a better understanding of the neglect syndrome.     

Visuospatial neglect in near and far space: dissociation between line bisection and letter cancellation

The differential performance on a line bisection and a cancellation task in near and far space was studied. A group of 10 patients with severe left-sided visuospatial neglect and a group of 10 right-brain damaged patients without neglect were examined. The stimuli were presented at a distance of 60 cm (near space) and 160 cm (far space), respectively, and corrected for visual angle. In the line bisection task, patients were asked to point to the estimated line centre with a pencil (near space) or a stick (far space). In the cancellation task, patients pointed to all target stimuli they could detect using either a pencil (near space) or a stick (far space). Most patients with left hemineglect showed a more prominent neglect in far space as compared to near space for the line bisection task, whereas no difference of performance between near and far space was found in the control patients. In contrast, no group showed a distance effect in the cancellation task. The observation that only line bisection is influenced by the distance of the stimulus suggests that line bisection and cancellation are processed differentially. It is proposed that line bisection requires an allocentric reference system focusing attention on objects, whereas cancellation tasks are based on an egocentric reference system responsible for visuospatial attention. Our results indicate that distance changes perception within the allocentric but not within the egocentric system.     

The Character-line Bisection Task: a new test for hemispatial neglect

A failure to report or respond to stimuli presented in a portion of space is termed hemispatial neglect. Line bisection and line cancellation are two of the tests used most commonly to assess for neglect. Perhaps, because neglect can be induced by a variety of deficits, neither of these tests used alone is as sensitive as both used together. Hence, the primary purpose of this study was to assess the sensitivity, reliability and validity of a new test called the Character-line Bisection Task (CLBT) that combines features of both the bisection and cancellation tests. Since local attention and language are primarily mediated by and activate the left hemisphere, our second goal was to learn if the CLBT and especially the letter version induce a greater rightward bias than the solid-line bisection task. Eighty patients with acute right hemisphere stroke and 81 controls performed the CLBT that consists of two subtests, the Letter-line and Star-line Bisection tasks. All subjects also completed four conventional tests for neglect (Standard solid-line bisection, line cancellation, Star Cancellation, and figure copying). In the bisection tasks both patients and controls bisected to the right with the CLBT than with the solid-line bisection task, suggesting the CLBT induces asymmetrical hemispheric activation. This enhanced rightward deviation with the CLBT was the same for the Letter-line and Star-line Bisection tasks. In regard to sensitivity, we defined the presence of neglect syndrome based on a total score derived from performance of controls on all six tests. This total score detected 55 (68.8%) patients with neglect. Within this group, the Letter-line and Star-line tasks diagnosed neglect in 50 and 48 patients, respectively, resulting in the highest sensitivities (90.9, 87.3%) of the six tests. Thus, the CLBTs demonstrated higher sensitivities than the other commonly used neglect tests and these new tests can be useful for the detection and quantification of unilateral neglect.     

Ipsilesional neglect: behavioural and anatomical features

OBJECTIVE: To learn more about the behavioural and anatomical features of ipsilesional neglect. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with spatial neglect were tested on cancellation and line bisection tasks. To learn if patients with ipsilesional neglect demonstrate the sensory-attentional or motor-intentional type of neglect, a video apparatus was used that dissociates these determinants. RESULTS: Five patients showed evidence of ipsilesional neglect. This phenomenon was seen only on the line bisection task. All patients with ipsilesional neglect had lesions involving frontal-subcortical regions. Although ipsilesional neglect evolved from early in three of five cases, the other patients displayed ipsilesional neglect without initial contralateral neglect, suggesting that ipsilesional neglect cannot be fully attributed to a compensatory strategy. The results of the tests that used the video apparatus indicate that right sided frontal or subcortical injury may induce contralateral attentional or intentional "approach" behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: Ipsilesional neglect is most often associated with frontal-subcortical lesions, cannot be entirely attributed to a compensatory strategy, and may be induced by an attentional bias, an intentional bias, or both.