Pseudoneglect in solid-line versus character-line bisection tasks: A test for attention dominance theory

Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 174-178

  Lee, Byung Hwa ^a   Kim, Minjee ^a   Kang, Sue J ^a   Park, Key Chung ^a   Kim, Eun Joo ^a   Adair, John C ^b   Na, Duk L ^a,c  

^a Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Sungkyunkwan University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Attention; Line bisection; Pseudoneglect

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; BRAIN FUNCTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERROR; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDONEGLECT; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; TASK PERFORMANCE; THEORY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL PROCESSES; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PERCEPTUAL DISORDERS; SPACE PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 4544237419     PISSN: 15433633     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.wnn.0000136592.83413.5f     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Jewell G, McCourt ME. Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 2000;38:91-110.
2. Bowers D, Heilman KM. Pseudoneglect: effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia. 1980;18:491-498.
3. Heilman KM, Van Den Abell T. Right hemisphere dominance for attention: the mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries of inattention (neglect). Neurology. 1980;30:327-330.
4. Rueckert L, Deravanesian A, Baboorian D, et al. Pseudoneglect and the cross-over effect. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40:162-173.
5. Na DL, Adair JC, Choi SH, et al. Ipsilesional versus contralesional neglect depends on attentional demands. Cortex. 2000;36:455-467.
6. Lee BH, Kang SJ, Park JM, et al. The Character-line Bisection Task: a new test for hemispatial neglect. Neuropsychologia (in press).
7. Martin M. Hemispheric specialization for local and global processing. Neuropsychologia. 1979;17:33-40.
8. Fink GR, Halligan PW, Marshall JC, et al. Where in the brain does visual attention select the forest and the trees? Nature. 1996;382:626-628.
9. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9:97-113.
10. Heilman KM, Watson RT. Changes in the symptoms of neglect induced by changing task strategy. Arch Neurol. 1978;35:47-49.
11. Riestra AR, Womack KB, Crucian GP, et al. Is the middle between both halves? Midpoint location and segment size estimation in neglect. Neurology. 2002;59:1580-1584.
12. Fink GR, Marshall JC, Weiss PH, et al. Task instructions influence the cognitive strategies involved in line bisection judgements: evidence from modulated neural mechanisms revealed by fMRl. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40:119-130.
13. Stam CJ, Bakker M. The prevalence of neglect: superiority of neuropsychological over clinical methods of estimation. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 1990;92:229-253.
14. Fujii T, Fukatsu R, Yamadori A, et al. Effect of age on the line bisection test. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1995;17:941-944.
15. Goldstein G, Shelly C. Does the right hemisphere age more rapidly than the left? J Clin Neuropsychol. 1981;3:65-78.
16. Meudell PR, Greenhalgh M. Age related differences in left and right hand skill and in visuospatial performance: their possible relationships to the hypothesis that the right hemisphere ages more rapidly than the left. Cortex. 1987;23:431-445.
17. Ellis RJ, Oscar-Berman M. Alcoholism, aging, and functional cerebral asymmetries. Psychol Bull. 1989;106:128-147.
18. Stark ME, Coslett HB. The "Navon effect"-Forest before trees? It depends on how old you are and how many trees are in the forest. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1993;15:46-47.