The distribution of spatial attention across the horizontal meridian of the visual field, as assessed by a simple reaction time (RT) paradigm, is dramatically abnormal in neglect patients. In the contralesional hemifield, RT increases sharply from centre to periphery, while in the ipsilesional hemifield, it decreases paradoxically from centre to mid-periphery. In the present study, we firstly asked whether this abnormal distribution of spatial attention is still present when patients know in advance the location of the impending stimulus, and second whether and to which extent it may be influenced by the concomitant presence of hemianopia. In Experiment 1, the stimuli were presented either predictably (blocks of same-point presentations) or unpredictably (blocks of randomised presentations) to one of several contralesional and ipsilesional field locations. As was the case for control subjects, neglect patients showed an overall RT decrease with same-point presentations. However, their abnormal contralesional RT lengthening and ipsilesional speeding were still present. In Experiment 2, the trials were blocked to same-hemifield presentations. In the ipsilesional field condition, neglect patients with and without hemianopia showed the same distorted distribution of attention favouring mid-periphery over central field locations. Two conclusions can be drawn from these experiments: first, the bulk of the abnormal deployment of spatial attention in neglect patients is related to an impairment of exogenous attention which cannot be compensated for by a spared endogenous control. Second, hemianopia does not affect the paradoxical speeding up of RT typically found in the mid-periphery of the ipsilesional field of neglect patients.
What kind of visual spatial attention is impaired in neglect?
NATALE, Elena;MARZI, Carlo Alberto
2005-01-01
Abstract
The distribution of spatial attention across the horizontal meridian of the visual field, as assessed by a simple reaction time (RT) paradigm, is dramatically abnormal in neglect patients. In the contralesional hemifield, RT increases sharply from centre to periphery, while in the ipsilesional hemifield, it decreases paradoxically from centre to mid-periphery. In the present study, we firstly asked whether this abnormal distribution of spatial attention is still present when patients know in advance the location of the impending stimulus, and second whether and to which extent it may be influenced by the concomitant presence of hemianopia. In Experiment 1, the stimuli were presented either predictably (blocks of same-point presentations) or unpredictably (blocks of randomised presentations) to one of several contralesional and ipsilesional field locations. As was the case for control subjects, neglect patients showed an overall RT decrease with same-point presentations. However, their abnormal contralesional RT lengthening and ipsilesional speeding were still present. In Experiment 2, the trials were blocked to same-hemifield presentations. In the ipsilesional field condition, neglect patients with and without hemianopia showed the same distorted distribution of attention favouring mid-periphery over central field locations. Two conclusions can be drawn from these experiments: first, the bulk of the abnormal deployment of spatial attention in neglect patients is related to an impairment of exogenous attention which cannot be compensated for by a spared endogenous control. Second, hemianopia does not affect the paradoxical speeding up of RT typically found in the mid-periphery of the ipsilesional field of neglect patients.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.