Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

The end of the line for a brain-damaged model of unilateral neglect

Mozer, M. C., Halligan, Peter and Marshall, J. C. 1997. The end of the line for a brain-damaged model of unilateral neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 9 (2) , pp. 171-190. 10.1162/jocn.1997.9.2.171

[img]
Preview
PDF - Published Version
Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

For more than a century, it has been known that damage to the right hemisphere of the brain can cause patients to be unaware of the contralesional side of space. This condition, known as unilateral neglect, represents a collection of clinically related spatial disorders characterized by the failure in free vision to respond, explore, or orient to stimuli predominantly located on the side of space opposite the damaged hemisphere. Recent studies using the simple task of line bisection, a conventional diagnostic test, have proven surprisingly revealing with respect to the spatial and attentional impairments involved in neglect. In line bisection, the patient is asked to mark the midpoint of a thin horizontal lie on a sheet of paper. Neglect patients generally transect far to the right of the center. Extensive studies of line bisection have been conducted, manipulating-among other factors-line length, orientation, and position. We have simulated the pattern of results using an existing computational model of visual perception and selective attention called MORSEL (Mozer, 1991). MORSEL has already been used to model data in a related disorder, neglect INTRODUCTION Neglect Unilateral neglect or bemi-inattention describes a collection of behavioral symptoms in which patients appear to ignore, forget, or turn away from contralesional space (Heilman, Watson, & Valenstein, 1993). Neglect after right-sided lesions is more frequent, long lasting, and severe than after equivalent lesions of the left hemisphere. The disorder can compromise visual, auditory, tactile, and olfactory modalities and may involve personal, peripersonal, extrapersonal, and “imaginal” space (Halligan & Marshall, 1993a). Unilateral neglect is far from a unitary phenomenon and has been shown to fractionate into a number of dissociable components in dyslexia (Mozer & Behrmann, 1990). In this earlier work, MORSEL was “lesioned” in accordance with the damage we suppose to have occurred in the brains of neglect patients. The same model and lesion can simulate the detailed pattern of performance on line bisection, including the following observations: (1) no consistent across-subject bias is found in normals; (2) transection displacements are proportional to line length in neglect patients; (3) variability of displacements is proportional to line length, in both normals and patients; (4) position of the lines with respect to the body or the page on which they are drawn has little effect; and (5) for lines drawn at different orientations, displacements are proportional to the cosine of the orientation angle. MORSEL fails to account for one observation: across patients, the variability of displacements for a particular line length is roughly proportional to mean displacement. Nonetheless, the overall fit of the model is sufficiently good that we believe MORSEL can be used as a diagnostic tool to characterize the specific nature of a patient’s deficit, and thereby has potential down the line in therapy.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Publication
Status: Published
Schools: Psychology
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0321 Neuroscience. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
Additional Information: Pdf uploaded in accordance with publisher's policy at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/0898-929X/ (accessed 26/02/2014).
Publisher: MIT Press
ISSN: 0898-929x
Date of First Compliant Deposit: 30 March 2016
Last Modified: 04 Jun 2017 04:14
URI: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/id/eprint/35241

Citation Data

Cited 65 times in Google Scholar. View in Google Scholar

Cited 46 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item