Search

The relationships between spatial neglect for perceptual objects and representational for imagined items are difficult to explore because of several methodological problems, including the dearth of comparable tests for real and imagined scenes. We asked 19 patients with right brain damage and 12 healthy controls to say whether an auditorily presented French geographical location was left or right of Paris, and recorded their vocal response times. Afterwards, participants performed a similar test with visually presented items. Although several patients had asymmetries of performance on the perceptual version of the test, only one patient was more accurate for right-sided than for left-sided imagined stimuli, thus showing evidence for imaginal neglect. However, this patient performed normally on place description and on mental number line bisection, perhaps as a consequence of different strategies he employed for these tasks. Overall, our results confirm previous evidence showing that imaginal neglect is less frequent than, and often occurs in association with, perceptual neglect. Imaginal neglect may result from the contribution of deficits partly distinct from those implicated in perceptual neglect, such as impaired endogenous orienting of attention or deficits of spatial working memory.

This study investigates to what extent visual perception integrity is necessary for visual mental imagery. Sixteen low-vision participants with severe peripheral visual field loss, 16 with severe central field loss, 6 left brain-damaged patients with right homonymous hemianopia, 6 right brain-damaged patients with left homonymous hemianopia, and 16 normally sighted controls performed perceptual and imagery tasks using colours, faces, and spatial relationships. Results showed that (a) the perceptual and mental image>ry disorders vary according to the type of visual field loss, (b) hemianopics had no more difficulties imagining spatial stimuli in their contralesional hemispace than in their ipsilesional one, and (c) the only hemianopic participant to have perceptual and mental imagery impairments suffered from attentional deficits. Results suggest that (a) visual memory is not definitively established, but rather needs perceptual practice to be maintained, and (b) that visual mental imagery may involve some of the attentional-exploratory mechanisms that are employed in visual behaviour.

We describe the case of a patient with right hemisphere damage and left unilateral neglect. The patient was asked to draw from memory common objects, either with or without visual feedback. In the conditions without visual feedback the patient was either blindfolded or he made "invisible" drawings using a pen with the cap on, the drawings being recorded with carbon paper underneath. Results showed more neglect without than with visual feedback, contrary to previously published cases. This patient's pattern of performance may result from the contribution of a deficit of spatial working memory. Alternatively or in addition, the patient, who was undergoing cognitive rehabilitation for neglect, may have found easier to compensate for his neglect with visual feedback, which allowed him to visually explore the left part of his drawings.

The relationship between visual perception and visual mental imagery are at the center of a lively theoretical debate between those postulating common neurocognitive processes between perception and imagery and those who emphasize the differences between these two entities. Neuropsychology can make an important contribution to this debate, by assessing associations and dissociations between perceptual and imaginal deficits in patients with brain damage. However, currently there is no standardized test battery available for such assessments.

Left unilateral neglect, a dramatic condition which impairs awareness of left-sided events, has been classically reported after right hemisphere cortical lesions involving the inferior parietal region. More recently, the involvement of long range white matter tracts has been highlighted, consistent with the idea that awareness of events occurring in space depends on the coordinated activity of anatomically distributed brain regions. Damage to the superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF), linking parietal to frontal cortical regions, or to the inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF), connecting occipital and temporal lobes, has been described in neglect patients. In this study, four right-handed patients with right hemisphere strokes underwent a high definition anatomical MRI with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) sequences and a pencil and paper neglect battery of tests. We used DTI tractography to visualise the SLF, ILF and the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFOF), a pathway running the depth of the temporal lobe, not hitherto associated with neglect. Two patients with cortical involvement of the inferior parietal and superior temporal regions, but intact and symmetrical fasciculi, showed no signs of neglect. The other two patients with signs of left neglect had superficial damage to the inferior parietal cortex and white matter damage involving the IFOF. These findings suggest that superficial damage to the inferior parietal cortex per se may not be sufficient to produce visual neglect. In some cases, a lesion to the direct connections between ventral occipital and frontal regions (ie, IFOF) may contribute to the manifestation of neglect by impairing the top down modulation of visual areas from the frontal cortex.

Unilateral spatial neglect (USN) was defined 30 years ago as "a failure to report, respond, or orient to stimuli that are presented contralateral to a brain lesion, provided that this failure is not due to elementary sensory or motor disorders" by Heilman and Valenstein (1979). Even though this definition still holds, the last 30 years have been characterized by a profusion of clinical descriptions, neuroanatomical investigations and theoretical models of neglect. This article summarizes the wealth of neuroanatomical, clinical and experimental data concerning USN, by focusing on attentional and spatial deficits. Finally, some perspectives on neglect research are outlined.

Over the past several decades a growing amount of research has focused on the possibility of transiently reducing left neglect signs in right brain-damaged patients by using vestibular and/or visuo-proprioceptive stimulations. Here we review seminal papers dealing with these visuo-vestibulo-proprioceptive stimulations in normal controls, right brain-damaged (RBD) patients, and animals. We discuss these data in terms of clinical implications but also with regards to theoretical frameworks commonly used to explain the unilateral neglect syndrome. We undermine the effect of these stimulations on the position of the egocentric reference and extend the notion that the positive effects of these stimulation techniques may stem from a reorientation of attention towards the neglected side of space or from a recalibration of sensori-motor correlations. We conclude this review with discussing the possible interaction between experimental rehabilitation, models of neglect and basic spatial cognition research.

Twenty-six patients suffering from damage to the right side of the brain, 19 of whom exhibited signs of left neglect, as well as 32 matched controls, ran 3 spatial cuing tasks. Patients were also tested with 2 cancellation tests, a line-bisection test, the copy of a complex drawing, and a visual extinction procedure. Results first showed correlations between extinction and cancellation tests performance on one hand, and between line bisection and copy on the other hand. Second, results demonstrated that an engagement deficit toward contralesional targets appeared to be the most striking feature of neglect, and the engagement score was correlated with the cancellation score and extinction. Most patients with neglect also presented a deficit in disengagement, a deficit of inhibition of return, and probably a deficit of alertness. Deficits in engagement and in disengagement, as well as poor scores in cancellation tests, seemed to be related with posterior cortical and subcortical lesions. Most important, even if an endogenous deficit (frequently related with a thalamic lesion) could aggravate the neglect behavior, neglect syndrome was mainly explained by a deficit of exogenous attention.

When describing known places from memory, patients with left spatial neglect may mention more right- than left-sided items, thus showing representational, or imaginal, neglect. This suggests that these patients cannot either build or explore left locations in visual mental imagery. However, in place description there is no guarantee that patients are really employing visual mental imagery abilities, rather than verbal-propositional knowledge. Thus, patients providing symmetrical descriptions might be using other strategies than visual mental imagery. To address this issue, we devised a new test which strongly encourages the use of visual mental imagery. Twelve participants without brain damage and 12 right brain-damaged patients, of whom 7 had visual neglect, were invited to conjure up a visual mental image of the map of France. They subsequently had to state by pressing a left- or a right-sided key whether auditorily presented towns or regions were situated to the left or right of Paris on the imagined map. This provided measures of response time and accuracy for imagined locations. A further task, devised to assess response bias, used the words "left" or "right" as stimuli and the same keypress responses. Controls and non-neglect patients performed symmetrically. Neglect patients were slower for left than for right imagined locations. On single-case analysis, two patients with visual neglect had a greater response time asymmetry on the geographical task than predicted by the response bias task, but with symmetrical accuracy. The dissociation between response times and accuracy suggests that, in these patients, the left side of the mental map of space was not lost, but only "explored" less efficiently.

Objectives: Comparatively little research has been conducted on right neglect after left brain damage. The authors sought to assess contralateral neglect in subacute left hemisphere stroke patients using a comprehensive test battery validated in a large control group after right hemisphere stroke. Methods: Seventy-eight left hemisphere stroke patients were assessed. The test battery included a preliminary assessment of anosognosia and visual extinction, a clinical assessment of gaze orientation and personal neglect, and paper-and-pencil tests of spatial neglect in the peripersonal space. Only nonverbal tests were used. Results: Drawing and cancellation tasks revealed neglect in 10 to 13% of patients. The combined battery was more sensitive than any single test alone. A total of 43.5% of patients showed some degree of neglect on at least one measure. Anatomic analyses showed that neglect was more common and severe when the posterior association cortex was damaged. Conclusions: The frequency of occurrence of right neglect was, as expected, much lower than that reported in a study using the same assessment battery in right brain damage stroke patients. Nevertheless, neglect was found in a substantial proportion of patients at a subacute stage, suggesting that it should be considered in the rehabilitation planning of left brain damage stroke patients.

A complex link exists between vision and unilateral spatial neglect (USN). Firstly, USN is not a perceptual deficit, secondly, USN is not necessarily accompanied by a visual deficit and finally, USN can be observed in non-visual modalities as well as in mental spatial imagery. This apparent supramodality of USN stands in sharp contrast to the fact that neglect signs are often more severe and more durable in the visual than in other sensory modalities (Chokron et al., 2002). The influence of vision on spatial representation has rarely been studied. In the present study we assessed six right brain-damaged patients suffering from left USN on two tasks involving spatial representations: a clock-drawing task and a drawing from memory task in two experimental conditions, with and without visual control. We confirm that even in mental imagery, the absence of visual feedback may decrease and even suppress left neglect signs (Bartolomeo and Chokron, 2001b; 2002). Since vision is largely involved in the orientation of attention in space, suppressing visual control could reduce the magnetic attraction towards the right ipsilesional hemispace and in this way could allow a re-orientation of attention towards the left neglected hemispace. We discuss the theoretical and therapeutic implications of these findings.

Comparatively little research has been conducted on right neglect after left brain damage. The authors sought to assess contralateral neglect in subacute left hemisphere stroke patients using a comprehensive test battery validated in a large control group after right hemisphere stroke.

Halligan and Marshall [Cortex 27 (1991) 623] devised a new test to evaluate the hypothesis that in visual neglect, left space is systematically compressed rightwards. In the critical condition of the original study, rows of horizontally arranged numbers with a target arrow pointing to one of them from the opposite margin of the display were presented. When asked to verbally identify the number indicated by the arrow, a right brain-damaged patient with left neglect and hemianopia often indicated a number to the right of the target. The more the target was located on the left, the greater the response shift rightward, as if rightward compression were linearly proportional to the co-ordinates of Euclidian space. However, a possible alternative account could be that the patient's attention was attracted by the numbers located to the right of the target digit, thus biasing her responses toward numbers on the right. To explore this hypothesis, we asked normal participants and patients with right hemisphere lesions, with and without neglect or hemianopia, to mark on the margin of a sheet the approximate location indicated by an arrow situated on the opposite margin. In three different conditions, the arrow indicated either one of several numbers or lines in a row, or a blank location on the sheet margin. Only patients with left neglect, and especially those with associated hemianopia, deviated rightward, and then crucially only on those conditions where visible targets were present, consistent with the attentional bias account.

Eighty blindfolded healthy female subjects participated in an active and a passive straight-ahead pointing task to study the estimation of the subjective sagittal middle in the presence or absence of an active haptic exploration. Subjects were to point straight-ahead with their left or right index finger starting from different right- or left-sided locations, while performing either an active movement or with the hand being passively moved by the examiner. Results showed: (i) a significant effect of the hand used only on the active straight-ahead pointing task performance; (ii) a significant effect of the starting position both on the active and passive pointing performance; (iii) a significant correlation between the two protocols only in terms of spatial bias (algebraic error) but not in terms of precision (absolute errors). These results are discussed with regards to normal and neuropsychological studies of the egocentric frame of reference.

Inhibition of return (IOR) is thought to reflect a bias against returning attention to previously attended locations. According to this view, IOR should occur only if attention is withdrawn from the target location prior to target appearance. In the present study, endogenous attention and exogenous cueing were manipulated orthogonally. IOR was observed both when a target appeared at an unexpected location, and when a target appeared at the expected location. A similar pattern of results was obtained in a reanalysis of data from a study with Neglect patients. These results suggest that IOR is independent of endogenous orienting.

When two visual events appear consecutively in the same spatial location, our response to the second event is slower than to the first. This inhibition for repeated events may reflect a bias toward sampling novel locations, a bias useful for exploring visual space. It has been shown that the left hemisphere is more specialized in selective attentional processes than the right one. The aim of the present experiment was to test if this hemispheric specialization for selective attention may also affect the inhibition for repeated events. For this purpose, we asked 11 normal subjects to perform an identity-based discrimination task in which the target to be detected could appear alone or surrounded by flanking letters, in the left or in the right visual field. Results show that inhibition for repeated events is present only when selective attention is required and when the task is performed in the right specialized visual field.

Objectives: The lack of agreement regarding assessment methods is responsible for the variability in the reported rate of occurrence of spatial neglect after stroke. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity of different tests of neglect after right hemisphere stroke. Methods: Two hundred and six subacute right hemisphere stroke patients were given a test battery including a preliminary assessment of anosognosia and of visual extinction, a clinical assessment of gaze orientation and of personal neglect, and paper and pencil tests of spatial neglect in the peripersonal space. Patients were compared with a previously reported control group. A subgroup of patients (n=69) received a behavioural assessment of neglect in daily life situations. Results: The most sensitive paper and pencil measure was the starting point in the cancellation task. The whole battery was more sensitive than any single test alone. About 85% of patients Presented some degree of neglect on at least one measure. An important finding was that behavioural assessment of neglect in daily life was more sensitive than any other single measure of neglect. Behavioural neglect was considered as moderate to severe in 36% of cases. A factorial analysis revealed that paper and pencil tests were related to two underlying factors. Dissociations were found between extrapersonal neglect, personal neglect, anosognosia, and extinction. Anatomical analyses showed that neglect was more common and severe when the posterior association cortex was damaged. Conclusions: The automatic rightward orientation bias is the most sensitive clinical measure of neglect. Behavioural assessment is more sensitive than any single paper and pencil test. The results also support the assumption that neglect is a heterogeneous disorder.

The lack of agreement regarding assessment methods is responsible for the variability in the reported rate of occurrence of spatial neglect after stroke. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity of different tests of neglect after right hemisphere stroke.

After right posterior brain damage, patients may ignore events occurring on their left, a condition known as unilateral neglect. Although deficits at different levels of impairment may be at work in different patients, the frequency and severity of attentional problems in neglect patients have been repeatedly underlined. Recent advances in the knowledge of the mechanisms of spatial attention in normals may help characterizing these deficits. The present review focuses on studies exploring several aspect of attentional processing in unilateral neglect, with particular reference to the dichotomy between 'exogenous', or stimulus-related, and 'endogenous', or strategy-driven, orienting of attention. A large amount of neuropsychological evidence suggests that a basic mechanism leading to left neglect behavior is an impaired exogenous orienting toward left-sided targets. In contrast, endogenous processes seem to be relatively preserved, if slowed, in left unilateral neglect. Other component deficits, such as a general slowing of the operations of spatial attention, might contribute to neglect behavior. These results are presented and discussed, and their implications for hemispheric specialization in attentional orienting and for the mechanisms of visual consciousness are explored.

Patients with unilateral spatial neglect due to right-hemisphere lesions typically fail to attend to and explore left-sided stimulus objects. It has been postulated that in right-brain damaged (RBD) patients an ipsilesional displacement of the egocentric frame of reference (ER), whether visual or tactile, may be responsible for a contralesional supramodal spatial bias causing their left neglect behavior. However, this hypothesis had been proposed without testing, in the same patients, the position of the ER or their performance in the visual and tactile modalities. Thus, the aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that an ipsilateral shift of the ER is responsible for a supramodal spatial bias in neglect. For this purpose, a within-subject design is required. Consequently, 12 left neglect patients and 12 control subjects were asked to perform a proprioceptive straight-ahead pointing task while blindfolded, as well as visual and tactile bisection tasks. In the left neglect patients, we found:no systematic deviation of the ER on the ipsilesional right side;a significant rightward bias in visual bisection, and normal performance in tactile bisection;no correlation among the three tasks;that only visual bisection correlated with the severity of neglect. These results are discussed with regard to the egocentric and attentional hypothesis of neglect.