Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect: Influence of line geometry

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 520-524

  McCourt, Mark E ^a   Garlinghouse, Matt ^a  

^a NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; BRAIN ASYMMETRY; BRAIN FUNCTION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NEGLECT; NORMAL HUMAN; PERFORMANCE; SPATIAL MEMORY; STIMULUS;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; CALIBRATION; COGNITION DISORDERS; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; OPTICAL ILLUSIONS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 0033969455     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00085-8     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Anderson B. A mathematical model of line bisection behavior in neglect. Brain. 119:1996;841-850.
2. Beringer J. Experimental run time system (version 3.11). 1995;Berisoft Corporation, Frankfurt, Germany.
3. Bowers D., Heilman K.M. Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia. 18:1980;491-498.
4. Bradshaw J.L., Nathan G., Nettleton N.C., Wilson L., Pierson J. Why is there a left side underestimation in rod bisection. Neuropsychologia. 25:1987;735-738.
5. Cooper H., Hedges L.V. The handbook of research synthesis. 1994;Russel Sage Foundation, NY.
6. Halligan P.W., Marshall J.C. The bisection of horizontal and radial lines: A case study of normal controls and ten patients with left visuospatial neglect. International Journal of Neuroscience. 70:1993;149-167.
7. Jeannerod M., Biguer B. The directional coding of reaching movements. A visuomotor conception of spatial neglect. Jeannerod M. Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect. 1987;87-113 Elsevier Science Publishers, BV, North Holland.
8. Jewell G, McCourt ME. Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia 2000 (in press).
9. McCourt ME, Jewell G. Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia 1999 37, 843-55.
10. McCourt M.E., Olafson C. Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: Psychometric and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia. 35:1997;369-380.
11. Nielsen K.E., Intriligator J., Barton J.J.S. Spatial representation in the normal visual field: A study of hemifield line bisection. Neuropsychologia. 37:1999;267-277.
12. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia. 9:1971;97-113.
13. O'Shea R.P., Blackburn S.G., Ono H. Contrast as a depth cue. Vision Research. 34:1994;1595-1604.
14. Shelton P.A., Bowers D., Heilman K.M. Peripersonal and vertical neglect. Brain. 113:1990;191-205.
15. Shuren J.E., Jacobs D.H., Heilman K.M. The influence of center of mass effect on the distribution of spatial attention in the vertical and horizontal dimensions. Brain and Cognition. 34:1997;293-300.
16. Sternberg S. The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica. 30:1969;276-315.
17. Toth C., Kirk A. A normal bias towards a pictorially defined top in line bisection. Canadian Journal of Neurological Science. 23:1996;110-113.
18. Von Gruenau M., Faubert J. Intraattribute and interattribute motion induction. Perception. 23:1994;913-928.
19. Von Gruenau M., Saikali Z., Faubert J. Processing speed in the motion induction effect. Perception. 24:1995;477-490.