Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T04:14:02.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossover is not a consequence of neglect: A test of the orientation/estimation hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2002

MARK MENNEMEIER ,
ELSIE VEZEY ,
MELISSA LAMAR,  and
GEORGE JEWELL
MARK MENNEMEIER
Affiliation:
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama
ELSIE VEZEY
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson
MELISSA LAMAR,
Affiliation:
National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, Maryland
GEORGE JEWELL
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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. (JINS, 2002, 8, 107–114.)

Keywords

NeglectOrientationMagnitude estimationLine bisectionAttentionConfabulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 107 - 114
Copyright
© 2002 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, B. ( 1996). A mathematical model of line bisection behavior in neglect. Brain, 199, 810– 850.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. ( 1997). Pieces of the true crossover effect in neglect. Neurology, 49, 809– 812.Google Scholar
Bisiach, E. ( 1993). Mental representation in unilateral neglect and related disorders: The twentieth Barlett Memorial Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 435– 461.Google Scholar
Bisiach, E. & Luzzatti, C. ( 1978). Unilateral neglect of representational space. Cortex, 14, 129– 133.Google Scholar
Bisiach, E., Rusconi, M.L., Peretti, V.A., & Vallar, G. ( 1994). Challenging current accounts of unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1431– 1434.Google Scholar
Bowers, D. & Heilman, K.M. ( 1980). Pseudoneglect effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 491– 498.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J.L., Nathan, G., Nettleton, N.C., Wilson, L., & Pierson, J. ( 1987). Why is there a left side underestimation in rod bisection? Neuropsychologia, 25, 735– 738.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A. ( 1995). Cross-over, completion and confabulation in unilateral spatial neglect, Brain, 118, 455– 465.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A., Dajani, B.M., & Gage, R.J. ( 1994a). Psychophysical constraints on behavior in unilateral spatial neglect. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 7, 267– 274.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A., Mennemeier, M., & Heilman, K.M. ( 1994b). The psychophysical power law and unilateral spatial neglect. Brain and Cognition, 25, 92– 107.Google Scholar
Cross, D.V. ( 1973). Sequential dependencies and regression in psychophysical judgements. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 547– 522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halligan, P.W. & Marshall, J.C. ( 1998). How long is a piece of string? A study of line bisection in a case of visual neglect. Cortex, 24, 321– 328.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M. & Van Den Abell, T. ( 1980). Right hemisphere dominance for attention: The mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries of inattention. Neurology, 30, 327– 330.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Watson, R.T., & Valenstein, E. ( 1985). Neglect and related disorders. In E. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (pp. 243– 293). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hollingworth, H.L. ( 1909). The indifference point. In H.L. Hollingworth (Ed.), The inaccuracy of movement (pp. 21– 39). New York: The Science Press.
Jewell, G. & McCourt, M.E. ( 1999). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93– 110.Google Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. ( 1970). The cerebral basis of lateral asymmetries in attention. Acta Psychologica, 33, 193– 201.Google Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. ( 1993). Orientation 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). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
Manning, L., Halligan, P.W., & Marshall, J.C. ( 1990). Individual variation in line bisection: A study of normal subjects with application to the interpretation of visual neglect. Neuropsychologia, 28, 647– 655.Google Scholar
Marshall, J.C. & Halligan, P.W. ( 1989). When right goes left: An investigation of line bisection in a case of visual neglect. Cortex, 25, 503– 515.Google Scholar
Marshall, R.S., Lazer, R.M., Krakauer, J.W., & Sharman, R. ( 1998). Stimulus contex in hemineglect. Brain, 121, 2003– 2010.Google Scholar
McCourt, M.E. & Jewell, G. ( 1999). Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 37, 843– 855.Google Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Dowler, R., Pierce, C., & Glen, T. ( 1999). Getting to the bottom of crossover: Validation of a new hypothesis [Abstract]. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Societ, 5, 121.Google Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Rapcsak, S.Z., Dillon, M., & Vezey, E. ( 1998). A search for the optimal stimulus. Brain and Cognition, 37, 439– 459.Google Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Vezey, E., Chatterjee, A., Rapcsak, S.Z, & Heilman, K.M. ( 1997). Contributions of the left and right cerebral hemispheres to line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 35, 730– 715.Google Scholar
Mesulam, M.M. ( 1981). A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect. Annals of Neurology, 10, 309– 325.Google Scholar
Mozer, M.C., Halligan, P.W., & Marshall, J.C. ( 1997). The end of the line for a brain-damaged model of unilateral neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 171– 190.Google Scholar
Posner, M.I. & Dehaene, S. ( 1994). Attentional networks. Trends in Neuroscience, 17, 75– 79.Google Scholar
Stevens, S.S. ( 1970). Neural events and the psychophysical power law. Science, 170, 1043– 1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S.S. ( 1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 78, 426– 450.Google Scholar
Stevens, S.S. & Galanter, E.H. ( 1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377– 411.Google Scholar
Tegner, R. & Levander, M. ( 1991). The influence of stimulus properties on visual neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 54, 882– 886.Google Scholar
Watson, R.T., Valenstein, E., & Heilman, K.M. ( 1978). Nonsensory neglect. Annals of Neurology, 3, 505– 508.Google Scholar