Disorders of higher visual function and hemi-spatial neglect

Current Opinion in Neurology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 7-12

  Hodgson, Timothy L ^a   Kennard, Christopher ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN CORTEX LESION; HALLUCINATION; HUMAN; NEUROANATOMY; PARIETAL LOBE; REVIEW; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUOMOTOR COORDINATION; AGNOSIA; ATAXIA; COORDINATION; HEMISPATIAL NEGLECT; MOTOR CORTEX; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; PERCEPTION DISORDER; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL HALLUCINATION;

AGNOSIA; ANIMALS; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; PARIETAL LOBE; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL PATHWAYS;

EID: 0034106917     PISSN: 13507540     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00019052-200002000-00003     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Cantagallo A, Della Salla S. Preserved insight in an artist with extrapersonal spatial neglect. Cortex 1998; 34:163-189. •• A comprehensive description of the florid neglect shown fay the late Italian film maker Federico Fellini. This report provides an engaging introduction to the syndrome embellished by Fellini's humour and artistic talent.
2. Ffytche DH, Howard RJ. The perceptual consequences of visual loss: 'positive' pathologies of vision. Brain 1999; 122:1247-1260. • A review of research into visual hallucinations after visual pathologies.
3. Ffytche DH, Howard RJ, Brammer MJ, David A, Woodruff P, Williams S. The anatomy of conscious vision: an fMRI study of visual hallucinations. Nat Neurosci 1998; 1:738-742. • The authors report increased ventral extrastriate activity during visual hallucinations, emphasizing the active role played by higher cortical areas in interpreting degraded visual signals.
4. Manford M, Anderman F. Complex visual hallucinations: clinical and neurobiological insights. Brain 1998; 121:1819-1840.
5. Gregory RL. Eye and brain: the psychology of seeing, 3rd ed. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson; 1979.
6. Holmes G. Disturbances of vision by cerebral lesions. Br J Ophthalmol 1918; 2:353-384.
7. Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M. Two cortical visual systems. In: Analysis of visual behavior. Ingle DJ, Goodale MA, Mansfield RJW (editors). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1982. pp. 549-586.
8. Glickstein M, May JG. Visual control of movement: the circuits which link visual to motor areas of the brain with special reference to the visual input to the pons and cerebellum. In: Contributions to sensory physiology, vol. 7. Neff WD (editor). New York: Academic Press; 1982. pp. 103-145.
9. Milner AD. Neuropsychological studies of perception and visuo-motor control. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 1998; 353:1375-1384. • Summarizes recent evidence for separate cortical processing streams for perception and visuomotor action.
10. Carlesimo GA, Casadio P, Sabbadini M, Caltagirone C. Associative visual agnosia resulting from a disconnection between intact visual memory and semantic systems. Cortex 1998; 34:563-576.
11. Lissauer H. Ein Fall von Seelenblindheit nebst einem Beitrage zur Theorie derselben. Arch Psychiatr Nervenkrankheit 1890; 21:222-270.
12. Farah MJ. Distinguishing perceptual and semantic impairments affecting visual object recognition. Vis Cogn 1997; 4:199-206.
13. Farah MJ. Specialization within visual object recognition: clues from posopagnosia and alexia. In: The neuropsychology of high-level vision. Farah MJ, Ratcliffe G (editors). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1994.
14. Rumiati R, Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ, Bateman A. Visual object agnosia without alexia or prosopagnosia. Vis Cogn 1994; 1:181-194.
15. Buxbaum LJ, Glosser G, Coslett HB. Impaired face and word recognition without object agnosia. Neuropsychologia 1999; 37:41-50.
16. Caramazza A. The interpretation of semantic category-specific deficits: what do they reveal about the organization of conceptual knowledge in the brain? Neurocase 1998; 4:265-272. • Agnosias can be specific for particular categories of objects. Often the identification of biological forms are selectively impaired. The existence of category-specific agnosias has implications for the organization of brain systems involved in visual object perception and recognition.
17. Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ. The fractionation of visual agnosia. In: Visual object processing: a cognitive neuropsychological approach. Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ (editors). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1987. pp. 281-306.
18. Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW, Gannon T, Blott W, Jones V. Memories are made of this: the effects of time on stored visual knowledge in a case of visual agnosia. Brain 1999; 12:537-559.
19. Moss HE, Tyler LK, Durrant-Peatfield M, Bunn EM. 'Two eyes of a see-through': impaired and intact semantic knowledge in a case of selective deficit for living things. Neurocase 1998; 4:291-310.
20. Cappa SF, Frugoni M, Pasquali P, Perani D, Zorat F. Category-specific naming impairment for artefacts: a new case. Neurocase 1998; 4:391-397.
21. Ferreira CT, Ceccaldi M, Giusiano B, Poncet M. Separate visual pathways for perception of actions and objects: evidence from a case of apperceptive agnosia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998; 65:382-385.
22. Bentin S, Deouell LY, Soroker N. Selective visual streaming in face recognition: evidence from developmental prosopagnosia. Neuroreport 1999; 10:823-827. • Event-related potential study revealing a lack of face specificity in an early visual evoked potential in prosopagnosia. The finding suggests that disordered face perception in this patient arises from abnormal early visual processing.
23. Eimer M, McCarthy RA. Prosopagnosia and structural encoding of faces: evidence from event-related potentials. Neuroreport 1999; 10:255-259. • See [22•].
24. Zeki S. A century of cerebral achromotopsia. Brain 1990; 113:1721-1777.
25. Damasio A, Yanada T, Damasio H, Corbett J, McKee J. Central achromatopsia; behavioural anatomic and physiological aspects. Neurology 1980; 30:1064-1071.
26. Zeki S, Watson JDG, Lueck CJ, Friston KJ, Kennard C, Frackowiak RSJ. A direct demonstration of functional specialization in human visual-cortex. J Neurosci 1991; 11:641-649.
27. Kanwisher N, McDermott J, Chun M. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for the perception of faces. J Neurosci 1997; 17:4302-4311.
28. O'Craven KM, Downing PE, Kanwisher N. fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection. Nature 1999; 401:584-585.
29. Beuchamp MS, Haxby JV, Jennings JE, Deyong EA. An fMRI version of the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-Hue test reveals multiple color-selection areas in human ventral occipitotemporal cortex. Cerebral Cortex 1999; 9:257-263.
30. Jeannerod M, Decety J, Michel F. Impairment of grasping movements following bilateral posterior parietal lesion. Neuropsychologia 1994; 32:369-380.
31. Perenin M-T, Vighetto A. Optic ataxia: a specific disruption in visuomotor mechanisms. I. Different aspects of the deficit in reaching for objects. Brain 1988; 111:643-674.
32. Mayer AB, Ferraina S, Marconi B, Bullis JB, Lacquaniti F, Burnod Y, et al. Early motor influences on visuomotor transformations for reaching: a positive image of optic ataxia. Exp Brain Res 1998; 123:172-189.
33. Buxbaum LJ, Coslett HB. Spatio-motor representations in reaching: evidence for subtypes of optic ataxia. Cogn Neuropsychol 1998; 15:279-312.
34. Wolpert DM, Goodbody SJ, Husain M. Maintaining internal representations: the role of the human superior parietal lobe. Nat Neurosci 1998; 1:529-533. • A description of a patient with an impaired ability to localize limb position in the absence of visual cues. The findings suggest a role for the superior parietal lobe in maintaining an internal model of limb position.
35. Mesulem M-M. Spatial attention and neglect: parietal, frontal and cingulate contributions to the mental representation and attentional targeting of salient extrapersonal events. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 1999; 354:1325-1346. • A wide-ranging review emphasizing the multi-faceted nature of the neglect syndrome and the existence of multiple neural circuits for selective attention.
36. Kooistra CA, Heilman KM. Hemispatial visual inattention masquerading as hemianopia. Neurology 1989; 39:1125-1127.
37. Driver J. Object segmentation and visual neglect. Behav Brain Res 1995; 71:135-146.
38. Marshall JC, Halligan PW. The yin and yang of visuo-spatial neglect: a case study. Neuropsychologia 1994; 32:1037-1057.
39. Halligan PW, Marshall JC. Left neglect for near but not far space in man. Nature 1991; 350:498-500.
40. Cowey A, Small M, Ellis S. No abrupt change in visual hemi-neglect from near to far space. Neuropsychologia 1999; 37:1-6.
41. Vuilleumier P, Valenza N, Mayer E, Reverdin A, Landis T. Near and far visual space in unilateral neglect. Ann Neurol 1998; 43:406-410.
42. Cocchini G, Cubelli R, Della Salla S, Nicoletta B. Neglect without extinction. Cortex 1999; 35:285-313.
43. Bisiach E, Luzzatti C. Unilateral neglect of representational space. Cortex 1978; 14:129-133.
44. Chatterjee A, Thompson KA. Weigh(t)ing for awareness. Brain Cogn 1998; 37:477-490.
45. Marshall JC, Halligan PW. Blindsight and insight in visuo-spatial neglect. Nature 1988; 336:766-767.
46. Baylis GC, Driver J, Rafal RD. Visual extinction and stimulus repetition. J Cogn Neurosci 1993; 5:453-466.
47. Karnath HO, Ferber S. Is space representation distorted in neglect? Neuropsychologia 1999; 37:7-15.
48. Driver J, Mattingley J. Parietal neglect and visual awareness. Nature Neuroscience 1998; 1(1):17-22. • A review that emphasizes the homogeneity of neglect arising from inferior parietal lesions.
49. Hodgson TL, Müller HJ. Attentional localization prior to simple and directed manual responses. Percept Psychophys 1999; 61:308-321.
50. Bisiach E, Geminiani G, Berti A, Rusconi ML. Perceptual and premotor factors in unilateral neglect. Neurology 1990; 40:1278-1281.
51. Tegner R, Levander M. Through a looking glass: a new technique to demonstrate directional hypokinesia in unilateral neglect. Brain 1991; 114:1943-1951.
52. Nico D. Detecting directional hypokinesia: the epidiascope technique. Neuropsychologia 1996; 34:471-474.
53. Kim M, Na DL, Kim GM, Adair JC, Lee KH, Heilman KM. Ipsilesional neglect: behavioural and anatomical features. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 67:35-38.
54. Na DL, Adair JC, Williamson DJH, Schwarte RL, Haws B, Heilman KM. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998; 64:331-338.
55. Adair JC, Na DL, Schwartz RL, Heilman KM. Analysis of primary and secondary influences on spatial neglect. Brain Cogn 1998; 37:351-367.
56. Mattingley JB. Right hemisphere contributions to attention and intention. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 67:5.
57. Mattingley JB, Husain M, Rorden C, Kennard C, Driver J. Motor role of human inferior parietal lobe revealed in unilateral neglect patients. Nature 1998; 392:179-182. •• Data that reveal a role for the inferior parietal lobe in motor preparation as well as visual attention.
58. Rossetti Y, Rode G, Pisella L, Farne A, Li L, Boisson D, Perenin M-T. Prism adaptation to a rightward optical deviation rehabilitates left hemispatial neglect. Nature 1998; 395:166-169.
59. Brown V, Walker R, Gray C, Findlay JM. Limb activation and the rehabilitation of unilateral neglect: evidence of task-specific effects. Neurocase 1999; 5:129-142.
60. Mattingley JB, Robertson IH, Driver J. Modulation of covert visual attention by hand movement: evidence from parietal extinction after right-hemisphere damage. Neurocase 1998; 4:245-253.
61. Robertson IH. Cognitive rehabilitation: attention and neglect. Trends Cogn Sci 1999; 3:385-392. • A review of the recent findings concerning the rehabilitation of hemi-spatial neglect.
62. Robertson IH, Nico D, Hood B. The intention to act improves unilateral neglect: two demonstrations. NeuroReport 1995; 17:246-248.
63. Robertson IH, Mattingley JB, Rorden C, Driver J, Phasic alerting of neglect patients overcomes their spatial deficit in visual awareness. Nature 1998; 395:169-172.