The effect of body and environment-centred coordinates on free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for vertical and horizontal stimuli

Cortex

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 336-346

  Nicholls, Michael E R ^a   Smith, Amanda ^a   Mattingley, Jason B ^a   Bradshaw, John L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Attention; Gravity; Left; Neglect; Pseudoneglect; Right

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FEMALE; GRAVITY; HEAD TILTING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LUMINANCE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PARIETAL LOBE; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; SCORING SYSTEM; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; STANDING; STIMULUS RESPONSE; SUPINE POSITION; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; BODY POSTURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; METHODOLOGY; ORIENTATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; REFERENCE VALUE; VISUAL FIELD;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; POSTURE; REACTION TIME; REFERENCE VALUES; SPACE PERCEPTION; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33746433607     PISSN: 00109452     EISSN: 00109452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70360-5     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Anderson RA. Multimodal integration for the representation of space in the posterior parietal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 352: 1421-1428, 1997.
2. Ben-Hamed S, Duhamel JR, Bremmer F and Graf W. Representation of the visual field in the lateral intraparietal area of macaque monkeys: A quantitative receptive field analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 140: 127-144, 2001.
3. Blatt GJ, Anderson RA and Stoner GR. Visual receptive field organisation and cortico-cortico connections of the intraparietal area (area LIP) in the macaque. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 299: 421-445, 1990.
4. Bowers D and Heilman KM. Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18: 491-498, 1980.
5. Bradshaw JL, Nathan G, Nettleton NC, Pierson JM and Wilson LE. Head and body hemispace to the left and right III: Vibrotactile stimulation and sensory and motor components. Perception, 12: 651-661, 1983.
6. Bradshaw JL, Nettleton NC, Nathan G And Wilson L. Bisecting rods and lines: Effects of horizontal and vertical posture on left-side underestimation by normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 23: 421-425, 1985.
7. Butter CM, Evans J, Kirsch N and Kewman D. Altitudinal neglect following traumatic brain injury: A case report. Cortex, 25: 135-146, 1989.
8. Chokron S, Bernard JM and Imbert M. Length representation in normal and neglect subjects with opposite reading habits studied through a line extension task. Cortex, 33: 47-64, 1997.
9. Chokron S and De Agostini M. Reading habits and line bisection: A developmental approach. Cognitive Brain Research, 3: 51-58, 1995.
10. Chokron S and Imbert M. Influence of reading habits on line bisection. Cognitive Brain Research, 1: 219-222, 1993.
11. Dobler V, Manly T, Atkinson J, Wilson BA, Ioannou K and Robertson IH. Interaction of hand use and spatial selective attention in children. Neuropsychologia, 39: 1055-1064, 2001.
12. Drain M and Reuter-Lorenz PA. Vertical orienting bias: Evidence for attentional bias and 'neglect' in the intact brain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125: 139-158, 1996.
13. Fink GR, Marshall JC, Shah NJ, Weiss PH, Halligan PW, Grosse-Ruyken M, Ziemons K, Zilles K And Freund HJ. Line bisection judgements implicate right parietal cortex and cerebellum as assessed by fMRI. Neurology, 54: 1324-1331, 2000.
14. Fize D, Vanduffel W, Nelissen K, Denys K, Chef d'hotel C, Faugeras O and Orban GA. The retinotopic organisation of primate dorsal V4 and surrounding areas: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study in awake monkeys. Journal of Neuroscience, 23: 7395-7406, 2003.
15. Jeerakathil TJ and Kirk A. A representational vertical bias. Neurology, 44: 703-706, 1994.
16. Jewell G and McCourt ME. Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38: 93-110, 2000.
17. Kinsbourne M. The cerebral basis of lateral asymmetries in attention. Acta Psychologia, 33: 193-201, 1970.
18. Ladavas E. Is the hemispatial deficit produced by right parietal lobe damage associated with retinal or grabitational coordinates. Brain, 110: 167-180, 1987.
19. Ladavas E, del Pesce M and Provinciali L. Unilateral attention deficits and hemispheric asymmetries in the control of visual attention. Neuropsychologia, 27: 353-366, 1989.
20. Luh KE, Rueckert LM and Levy J. Perceptual asymmetries for free viewing of several types of chimeric stimuli. Brain and Cognition, 16: 83-103, 1991.
21. Mattingley JB, Berberovic N, Corben L, Slavin MJ, Nicholls MER and Bradshaw JL. The greyscales task: A perceptual measure of attentional bias following right hemisphere damage. Neuropsychologia, 42: 387-394, 2003.
22. Mattingley JB, Bradshaw JL, Nettleton NC and Bradshaw JA. Can task specific perceptual bias be distinguished from unilateral neglect? Neuropsychologia, 32: 805-817, 1994.
23. McCourt ME and Olafson C. Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: Psychophysical and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 35: 369-380, 1997.
24. Mennemeier M, Chatterjee A and Heilman KM. A comparison of the influences of body and environment centered reference frames in neglect. Brain, 117: 1013-1021, 1994.
25. Nicholls MER, Bradshaw JL and Mattingley JB. Free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for the judgement of shade, numerosity and size. Neuropsychologia, 37: 307-314, 1999.
26. Nicholls MER, Bradshaw JL and Mattingley JB. Unilateral hemispheric activation does not affect free-viewing perceptual asymmetries. Brain and Cognition, 46: 219-223, 2001.
27. Nicholls MER, Mattingley JB, Berberovic N, Smith A and Bradshaw JL. An investigation of the relationship between free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for vertical and horizontal stimuli. Cognitive Brain Research, 19: 289-301, 2004.
28. Nicholls MER and Roberts GR. Pseudoneglect: A scanning, premotor or attentional bias? Cortex, 38: 113-136, 2002.
29. Oldfield RC. The assessment of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9: 97-133, 1971.
30. Post RB, Caufield KJ and Welch RB. Contributions of object- and space-based mechanisms to line bisection errors. Neuropsychologia, 39: 856-864, 2001.
31. Previc FH. Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13: 519-575, 1990.
32. Rueckert L, Deravanesian A, Baboorian D, Lacalamita A and Repplinger M. Pseudoneglect and the cross-over effect. Neuropsychologia, 40: 162-173, 2002.
33. Schiff BB and Truchon C. Effect of unilateral contraction of hand muscles on perceiver biases in the perception of chimeric and neutral faces. Neuropsychologia, 31: 1351-1365, 1993.
34. Shephard RN and Hurwitz S. Upward direction, mental rotation and the discrimination of left and right turns in maps. Cognition, 18: 161-193, 1984.
35. Snyder LH, Batista AP and Anderson RA. Coding of intention in the posterior parietal cortex. Nature, 386: 167-170, 1997.
36. Tant MLM, Kuks JBM, Kooijman AC, Cornelissen FW and Brouwer WH. Greyscales uncover similar attentional deficits in homonymous hemianopia and visual hemi-neglect. Neuropsychologia, 40: 1474-1481, 2002.
37. Van Vugt P, Fransen I, Creten W and Paquier P. Line bisection performances of 650 normal children. Neuropsychologia, 38: 886-895, 2000.
38. Vingiano W. Pseudoneglect on a cancellation task. International Journal of Neuroscience, 25: 245-254, 1991.