Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:49:39.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The attenuation of auditory neglect by implicit cues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2006

A. RAND COLEMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
J. MICHAEL WILLIAMS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Abstract

This study examined implicit semantic and rhyming cues on perception of auditory stimuli among nonaphasic participants who suffered a lesion of the right cerebral hemisphere and auditory neglect of sound perceived by the left ear. Because language represents an elaborate processing of auditory stimuli and the language centers were intact among these patients, it was hypothesized that interactive verbal stimuli presented in a dichotic manner would attenuate neglect. The selected participants were administered an experimental dichotic listening test composed of six types of word pairs: unrelated words, synonyms, antonyms, categorically related words, compound words, and rhyming words. Presentation of word pairs that were semantically related resulted in a dramatic reduction of auditory neglect. Dichotic presentations of rhyming words exacerbated auditory neglect. These findings suggest that the perception of auditory information is strongly affected by the specific content conveyed by the auditory system. Language centers will process a degraded stimulus that contains salient language content. A degraded auditory stimulus is neglected if it is devoid of content that activates the language centers or other cognitive systems. In general, these findings suggest that auditory neglect involves a complex interaction of intact and impaired cerebral processing centers with content that is selectively processed by these centers (JINS, 2006, 12, 649–656.)

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2006 The International Neuropsychological Society

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

Alexander, M.P. & Warren, R.L. (1988). Localization of callosal auditory pathways: A CT case study. Neurology, 38, 802804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (1979). Guidelines for determining the threshold level for speech. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 21, 353356.Google Scholar
Bellmann, A., Meuli, R., & Clarke, S. (2001). Two types of auditory neglect. Brain, 124(Pt. 4), 676687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, M.I. & Hallige, J.B. (1989). Stimulus intensity, attentional instructions, and the ear advantage during dichotic listening. Brain and Cognition, 9, 136148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro-Caldas, A., Guerreiro, M., & Confraria, A. (1984). Transient and persistent right ear extinction in dichotic listening: Subcortical lesions. Neurology, 34, 14181422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channon, S., Daum, I., & Polkey, C.E. (1989). The effect of categorization on verbal memory after temporal lobectomy. Neuropsychologia, 27, 777785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, W.G. & Miller, G.A. (1989). Contexts of antonymous adjectives. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 357375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Renzi, E., Gentilini, M., & Barbieri, C. (1989). Auditory neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 52, 613617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Renzi, E., Gentilini, M., & Pattacini, F. (1984). Auditory extinction following hemisphere damage. Neuropsychologia, 22, 733744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eustache, F., Lechevalier, B., Viader, F., & Lambert, J. (1990). Identification and discrimination disorders in auditory perception: A report on two cases. Neuropsychologia, 28, 257270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farah, M.J., Wallace, M.A., & Vecera, S.P. (1993). “What” and “where” in visual attention: Evidence from the neglect syndrome. In I.H. Robertson & J.C. Marshall (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: Clinical and experimental studies (pp. 123138). East Sussex, UK: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Ltd.
Hagoort, P., Wassenaar, M., & Brown, C. (2003). Real-time semantic compensation in patients with agrammatic comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence for multiple-route plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America, 100, 43404345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, K.M. & Valenstein, E. (1972). Auditory neglect in man. Archives of Neurology, 26, 3235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugdahl, K., Wester, K., & Asbjornsen, A. (1991). Auditory neglect after right frontal lobe and right pulvinar thalamic lesions. Brain & Language, 41, 465473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junque, A.A. & Marti-Vilalta, V.P. (1990). Auditory ear extinction in lacumar syndromes. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 81, 507511.Google Scholar
Kartsounis, L.D. & Warrington, E.K. (1989). Unilateral visual neglect overcome by cues implicit in stimulus arrays. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 52, 12531259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. (1993). Orientational bias model of unilateral neglect: Evidence from attentional gradients within hemispace. In I.H. Robertson & J.C. Marshall (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: Clinical and experimental studies (pp. 6386). East Sussex, UK: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Ltd.
McCarthy, R.A. & Warrington, E.K. (1988). Evidence for modality-specific meaning systems in the brain [see comments]. Nature, 334, 428430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.A. & Fellbaum, C. (1991). Semantic networks of English. Cognition, 41, 197229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M.I. & Petersen, S.E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 2542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pujol, J., Junque, C., Vendrell, P., Garcia, P., Capdevila, A., & Marti-Vilalta, V.P. (1991). Left-ear extinction in patients with MRI periventricular lesions. Neuropsychologia, 29, 177184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seron, X., Coyette, F., & Bruyer, R. (1989). Ipsilateral influences on contralateral processing in neglect patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 6, 475498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieroff, E. & Posner, M.I. (1988). Cueing spatial attention during processing of words and letter strings in normals. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 451472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solso, R.L. (1995). Cognitive psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Soroker, N., Calamaro, N., Glicksohn, J., & Myslobodsky, M.S. (1997). Auditory inattention in right-hemisphere-damaged patients with and without visual neglect. Neuropsychologia, 35, 249256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speaks, C., Gray, T., & Miller, J. (1975). Central auditory deficits and temporal-lobe lesions. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 40, 192205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, S.P. (1986). Dichotic Listening. In H.J. Hannay (Ed.), Experimental techniques in human neuropsychology (pp. 138166). New York: Oxford University Press.
Thorndike, E.L. & Lorge, I. (1959). The teacher's book of 30,000 words. Columbia College, NY: Bureau of Publications.
Tulving, E. & Schacter, D.L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247, 301306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.M. (1990). The test of auditory perception (Version 2.0). Marlton, NJ: Brainmetric.