Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:23:52.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do perceptual asymmetries differ in peripersonal and extrapersonal space?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

NICOLE A. THOMAS  and
LORIN J. ELIAS
NICOLE A. THOMAS*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
LORIN J. ELIAS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Nicole Thomas, Department of Psychology, 9 Campus Drive, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5A5, Canada. E-mail: nicole.thomas@usask.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A space-based dissociation has been observed in clinical hemineglect, wherein neglect can be specific to either peripersonal or extrapersonal space. This same dissociation might occur in pseudoneglect, where both space-based and visual field differences have been observed. Upper and bottom visual field differences were examined within-subjects (N = 39), by presenting the greyscales task in both peripersonal and extrapersonal space. The leftward bias was strongest in the bottom visual field; however, no space-based differences were observed. It appears that perceptual biases differ between the upper and bottom visual fields, but this is not related to space-based perceptual biases. (JINS, 2010, 16, 210–214.)

Keywords

Spatial attentionLateral biasesPseudoneglectVisual field differencesNear spaceFar spaceLaterality
Type
Brief Communications
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 210 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barrett, A.M., Crosson, B., Crucian, G.P., & Heilman, K.M. (2000). Horizontal line bisections in upper and lower body space. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 455–459.Google Scholar
Bjoertomt, O., Cowey, A., & Walsh, V. (2002). Spatial neglect in near and far space investigated by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain, 125, 2012–2022.Google Scholar
Bowers, D., & Heilman, K.M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 491–498.Google Scholar
Brodie, E.E., & Pettigrew, L.E.L. (1996). Is left always right? Directional deviations in visual line bisection as a function of hand and initial scanning direction. Neuropsychologia, 34, 467–470.Google Scholar
Chokron, S., Bartolomeo, P., Perenin, M., Helft, G., & Imbert, M. (1998). Scanning direction and line bisection: A study of normal subjects and unilateral neglect patients with opposite reading habits. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 173–178.Google Scholar
Dellatolas, G., Vanluchene, J., & Coutin, T. (1996). Visual and motor components in simple line bisection: An investigation in normal adults. Cognitive Brain Research, 4, 49–56.Google Scholar
Diekamp, B., Regolin, L., Güntürkün, O., & Vallortigara, G. (2005). A left-sided visuospatial bias in birds. Current Biology, 15, R372–R373.Google Scholar
Elias, L.J., Bryden, M.P., & Bulman-Fleming, M.B. (1998). Footedness is a better predictor than is handedness of emotional lateralization. Neuropsychologia, 36, 37–43.Google Scholar
Garza, J.P., Eslinger, P.J., & Barrett, A.M. (2008). Perceptual-attentional and motor intentional bias in near and far space. Brain and Cognition, 68, 9–14.Google Scholar
Halligan, P.W., & Marshall, J.C. (1991). Left neglect for near but not far space in man. Nature, 350, 498–500.Google Scholar
Heilman, K., & Valenstein, E. (1979). Mechanisms underlying hemispatial neglect. Annals of Neurology, 5, 166–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, I., Schindler, I., Kerkhoff, G., von Rosen, F., & Golz, D. (2005). Visuospatial neglect in near and far space: Dissociation between line bisection and letter cancellation. Neuropsychologia, 43, 724–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinsbourne, M. (1970). The cerebral basis of lateral asymmetries in attention. Acta Psychologica, 3, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupp, D.B., Robinson, B.M., & Elias, L.J. (in press). Free-viewing perceptual asymmetry for distance judgments: Objects in right hemispace are closer than they appear. International Journal of Neuroscience.Google Scholar
Longo, M.R., & Lourenco, S.F. (2006). On the nature of near space: Effects of tool use and the transition to far space. Neuropsychologia, 44, 977–981.Google Scholar
Luh, K.E. (1995). Line bisection and perceptual asymmetries in normal individuals: What you see is not what you get. Neuropsychology, 9, 435–448.Google Scholar
Manning, L., Halligan, P.W., & Marshall, J.C. (1990). Individual variation in line bisection: A study of normal subjects with application to the interpretation of visual neglect. Neuropsychologia, 7, 647–655.Google Scholar
McCourt, M.E., & Garlinghouse, M. (2000). Asymmetries of visuospatial attention are modulated by viewing distance and visual field elevation: Pseudoneglect in peripersonal and extrapersonal space. Cortex, 36, 715–731.Google Scholar
McCourt, M.E., & Jewell, G. (1999). Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 37, 843–855.Google Scholar
Nicholls, M.E.R., Bradshaw, J.L., & Mattingley, J.B. (1999). Free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for the judgement of brightness, numerosity and size. Neuropsychologia, 37, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholls, M.E.R., & Roberts, G.R. (2002). Can free-viewing perceptual asymmetries be explained by scanning, pre-motor or attentional biases? Cortex, 38, 113–136.Google Scholar
Previc, F.H. (1990). Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 519–575.Google Scholar
Regolin, L. (2006). The case of the line-bisection: When both humans and chickens wander left. Cortex, 42, 101–103.Google Scholar
Varnava, A., McCarthy, M., & Beaumont, J.G. (2002). Line bisection in normal adults: Direction of attentional bias for near and far space. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1372–1378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, P.H., Marshall, J.C., Wunderlich, G., Tellmann, L., Halligan, P.W., Freund, H., et al. (2000). Neural consequences of acting in near versus far space: A physiological basis for clinical dissociations. Brain, 123, 2531–2541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, D., & Halligan, P. (2003). The effects of stimulus size on bisection judgements in near and far space. Visual Cognition, 10, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar