2002•NeurologyRequires access

Is the middle between both halves?

Alonso R. Riestra, Kyle B. Womack, Gregory P. Crucian, Kenneth M. Heilman

Open publisher page 18 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Line bisection errors in neglect are attributed to perceptual size distortions. In order to compare the two segments of the line to determine if they are equal, one might first estimate the location of a midpoint that defines the two line segments to be compared. OBJECTIVES: The authors attempted to determine whether estimating a line's midpoint can be dissociated from comparing the two segments of this line, and if so, what the relative contribution of each of these tasks is to the perceptual bias in neglect. METHODS: The authors studied two patients with hemispatial neglect from right hemisphere lesions by asking them where bisection marks were placed on prebisected lines and whether the two adjacent line segments were equal. RESULTS: There was a stronger bias judging the position of the bisecting marks ("where" determination) than comparing the size of two adjacent line segments. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that perceptual size distortion of line segments alone cannot explain the subjects' line bisection bias, but postperceptual deficits in "where" computations may better account for their errors locating the midpoint. "Where" determinations might require more attentional capacity, depend more heavily on viewer-centered allocation of attention, and be mediated by the right hemisphere's "where" dorsal stream. In contrast, comparing the length of two segments might be mediated by the left hemisphere's "what" ventral stream.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Line bisection errors in neglect are attributed to perceptual size distortions. In order to compare the two segments of the line to determine if they are equal, one might first estimate the location of a midpoint that defines the two line segments to be compared. OBJECTIVES: The authors attempted to determine whether estimating a line's midpoint can be dissociated from comparing the two segments of this line, and if so, what the relative contribution of each of these tasks is to the perceptual bias in neglect. METHODS: The authors studied two patients with hemispatial neglect from right hemisphere lesions by asking them where bisection marks were placed on prebisected lines and whether the two adjacent line segments were equal. RESULTS: There was a stronger bias judging the position of the bisecting marks ("where" determination) than comparing the size of two adjacent line segments. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that perceptual size distortion of line segments alone cannot explain the subjects' line bisection bias, but postperceptual deficits in "where" computations may better account for their errors locating the midpoint. "Where" determinations might require more attentional capacity, depend more heavily on viewer-centered allocation of attention, and be mediated by the right hemisphere's "where" dorsal stream. In contrast, comparing the length of two segments might be mediated by the left hemisphere's "what" ventral stream.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 18 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Line bisection errors in neglect are attributed to perceptual size distortions. In order to compare the two segments of the line to determine if they are equal, one might first estimate the location of a midpoint that defines the two line segments to be compared. OBJECTIVES: The authors attempted to determine whether estimating a line's midpoint can be dissociated from comparing the two segments of this line, and if so, what the relative contribution of each of these tasks is to the perceptual bias in neglect. METHODS: The authors studied two patients with hemispatial neglect from right hemisphere lesions by asking them where bisection marks were placed on prebisected lines and whether the two adjacent line segments were equal. RESULTS: There was a stronger bias judging the position of the bisecting marks ("where" determination) than comparing the size of two adjacent line segments. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that perceptual size distortion of line segments alone cannot explain the subjects' line bisection bias, but postperceptual deficits in "where" computations may better account for their errors locating the midpoint. "Where" determinations might require more attentional capacity, depend more heavily on viewer-centered allocation of attention, and be mediated by the right hemisphere's "where" dorsal stream. In contrast, comparing the length of two segments might be mediated by the left hemisphere's "what" ventral stream.

Key concepts: Midpoint, Hemispatial neglect, Bisection, Neglect, Line segment, Line (geometry), Perception, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Is the middle between both halves? — Research Paper | ScholarLens