Unilateral spatial neglect in Alzheimer's disease A line bisection study

Neuropsychological studies on Alzheimer's disease (AD) have rarely mentioned about unilateral spatial neglect in spite of widespread use of visuospatial tasks. We reported a 62-year-old woman with probable AD who showed moderate dementia with left unilateral spatial neglect and relatively preserved language function. An extensive line bisection study with either hand confirmed her having left unilateral spatial neglect. Single photon emission computed tomography revealed relative hypoperfusion in the right temporal and parietal regions. AD patients with disproportionate right hemisphere dysfunction may exhibit left unilateral spatial neglect if tested adequately in the stage of mild to moderate dementia. We consider that application of the line bisection test to AD patients contributes to estimation of their right hemisphere function.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Reading direction and spatial neglect

Many American and European investigators have reported that hemispatial neglect is more frequent and more severe after right than left hemisphere lesions. This hemispheric asymmetry may be due to biological asymmetries, learned behavior, or both. Readers of European languages, unlike readers of Semitic languages, scan from left to right. Learned rightward scanning may increase the unilateral neglect associated with right hemisphere lesions and reduce the severity of neglect associated with left hemisphere lesions. To learn if hemispheric asymmetries of neglect are influenced by learned scanning behavior, we used line bisection and cancellation tasks to study patients with unilateral stroke who read only a Semitic or European language before the age of fifteen. We found that independent of reading direction, unilateral neglect was more commonly associated with right than left hemisphere lesions. After right hemisphere damage right to left readers bisected lines closer to center than left to right readers, but on the cancellation test readers of European languages did not perform differently than readers of Semitic languages. These findings suggest that whereas learned scan direction may influence the severity of neglect when measured by line bisection, these learned directional scans cannot fully account for the observed hemisphere asymmetries of neglect. They also suggest that the line bisection test is more influenced by the direction of scanning than is the cancellation test.     

Effect of head-centered and body-centered hemispace in unilateral neglect

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of head-centered and body-centered hemispace on a line bisection task in patients with left unilateral neglect. Five patients with left unilateral neglect were given a line bisection task under four different conditions. The results clearly demonstrate that both head-centered and body-centered hemispace had a statistically significant effect on the line bisection task. The results are discussed with respect to a reference frame of space and the validity of dividing unilateral neglect into two components (i.e., spatial neglect and object neglect) is proposed.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Simulating unilateral neglect in normals using prism adaptation: implications for theory

Rightward deviation on line bisection is considered one of the most classic clinical signs of unilateral visual neglect--a cognitive disorder of spatial processing that commonly follows right brain damage. Recently, short-term adaptation to wedge prisms has been shown to significantly reduce neglect on this and other conventional diagnostic tasks. Our previous study has shown that visuomotor adaptation in normals produces a similar pattern of directional bias on a line bisection task. Based on the good working knowledge of how neglect patients perform on different versions of the standard diagnostic task, we showed here that using leftward-deviating prisms in normals, it is possible to produce: (1) a reliable bias on line bisection, (2) a rightward specific deviation, (3) a modulation of rightward deviation, which depends on the relative spatial location of the target lines and (4) a line length effect. A final experiment confirmed that these after-effects are specific to prism adaptation rather than passive prism exposure. Collectively, these findings confirm that adaptation to left-deviating prisms in normals produces a reliable right-sided bias and as shown by a previous visuospatial judgement task, these findings cannot be adequately explained by the symmetric sensori-motor effects of prism adaptation. Taken together with the improvement of spatial neglect shown by right-deviating prisms only, the present study suggests that low level sensori-motor adaptations play a greater role in right hemisphere organisation for spatial cognition than previously thought.     

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.     

The influence of stimulus properties on visual neglect.

Twenty five patients with right cerebral hemisphere damage and neglect participated in a series of bisection experiments. As expected, long lines were bisected to the right of true midpoint. By contrast, large circles and long white paper strips were bisected accurately, or with leftward errors. Small objects were less sensitive to stimulus properties: short lines and paper strips, and small circles, were bisected to the left of true midpoint, and these leftward errors were equally common as rightward errors with long lines. When asked to draw a perpendicular line of the same length as the presented horizontal line, patients overestimated the length of short lines but underestimated that of long lines. Presenting lines in near and far extrapersonal space selectively affected bisection of short lines. The results suggest that two opposing, independent mechanisms determine bisection performance in left neglect.     

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.     

Dissociated neglect for objective and subjective sizes

We examined the effect of line length and viewing distance on the line bisection performance in near space in five patients with left unilateral spatial neglect following right parietal lesions. A line bisection task by fixation was devised to avoid the influence of manual responses. The rightward deviation measured in visual angle increased linearly as a function of the visual angle of lines 150 mm or more long. This linearity, however, did not hold for lines of 100 mm or less. The deviation measured in length was nearly constant for each of these short lengths, even when the visual angle was varied at different viewing distances. The patients therefore discriminated the objective lengths of the short lines. For small objects, neglect patients may distribute attention mainly on the coordinates scaled for objective size. Received: 16 May 1996 Received in revised form: 1 August 1997 Accepted: 12 August 1997