Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Wilkinson, David T.; Sakel, Mohamed (2011)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: endocrine system
Hemi-spatial neglect can manifest in both the horizontal and radial spatial plane. However, debate exists over how closely the two forms of neglect relate. Here we compared the ability of a neglect patient to bisect stimuli in horizontal vs. radial orientation. When oriented horizontally, single lines were mis-bisected to the right, yet when surrounded by visual distracters, the lines were mis-bisected to the left. A leftward bias also emerged when horizontally-aligned strings of symbols were bisected. Unexpectedly, an analogous pattern of bias appeared when the stimuli were bisected in radial orientation; stimuli that induced a leftward bias now induced a proximal bias, while stimuli that induced a rightward bias induced a distal bias. Spontaneous reversals in radial bias have not been previously reported, and given that they were coupled with the horizontal reversals, imply that the spatial boundaries of horizontal and radial neglect are strongly constrained by common stimulus configurations.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Barrett, A., & Craver-Lemley, C. (2008). Is it what you see, or how you say it? Spatial bias in young and aged subjects. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14, 562-570.
    • Briggs, G., & Nebes, R. (1975). Patterns of hand preference in a student population. Cortex, 11, 230-238.
    • Butters, C., Rapcsak, S., Watson, R., & Heilman, K. (1988). Changes in sensory inattention, directional motor neglect and ''release'' of the fixation reflex following a unilateral frontal lesion: A case report. Neuropsychologia, 26, 533-545.
    • Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 201-215.
    • Coslett, B., Schwartz, M., Goldberg, G., Hass, D., & Perkins, J. (1993). Multi-modal hemispatial deficits after left hemisphere stroke. Brain, 116, 527-554.
    • Geldmacher, D., & Heilman, K. (1994). Visual field influence on radial line bisection. Brain & Cognition, 26, 65-72.
    • Halligan, P., Manning, L., & Marshall, J. (1991). Hemispheric activation vs. spatio-motor cueing in visual neglect: a case study. Neuropsychologia, 29, 165-716.
    • Halligan, P., & Marshall, J. (1993). The bisection of horizontal and radial lines: A case study of normal controls and ten patients with left visuospatial neglect. International Journal of Neuroscience, 70, 149-167.
    • Heilman, K., Chatterjee, A., & Doty, L. (1995). Hemispheric asymmetries of near-far spatial attention. Neuropsychology, 9, 58-61.
    • Humphreys, G., & Riddoch, J. (1995). Separate Coding of space within and between perceptual objects: Evidence from unilateral neglect. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 283-311.
    • Kinsbourne, M. (1993). Orientational bias model of unilateral neglect: Evidence from attentional gradients within hemispace. In I. H. Robertson & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: clinical and experimental studies (pp. 63-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Kwon, S., & Heilman, K. (1991). Ipsilateral neglect in a patient following a unilateral lesion. Neurology, 41, 2001-2004.
    • Mennemeier, M., Wertman, E., & Heilman, K. (1992). Neglect of peripersonal space. Evidence for multi-directional attentional systems in humans. Brain, 115, 37-50.
    • Monagan, P., & Shillcock, R. (1998). The cross-over effect in unilateral neglect. Modelling detailed data in the line bisection task. Brain, 121, 3081-3083.
    • Na, D.L., Adair, J.C., Choi, S.H., Seo, D.W., Kang, Y., & Heilman, K.M. (2000). Ipsilesional versus contralesional neglect depends on attentional demands. Cortex, 36, 455-467.
    • Previc, F. (1990). Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 519-557.
    • Riddoch, J., Humphreys, G., Luckhurst, L., Burroughs, E., & Bateman, A. (1995). ''Paradoxical neglect'': spatial representations, hemisphere-specific activation, and spatial cueing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 569-604.
    • Shelton, P., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. (1990). Peripersonal and vertical neglect. Brain, 113, 191-205.
    • Varnava, A., McCarthy, M., & Beaumont, J. (2002). Line bisection in normal adults: direction of attentional bias in near and far space. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1372-1378.
    • Wilson, B., Cockburn, J., & Halligan, P. (1987). Behavioural inattention Test. London: Pearson Assessment.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article