Disentangling perceptual and response bias in unilateral neglect: a methodological proposal

Weight and see: Line bisection in neglect reliably measures the allocation of attention, but not the perception of length

Line bisection has long been a routine test for unilateral neglect, along with a range of tests requiring cancellation, copying or drawing. However, several studies have reported that line bisection, as classically administered, correlates relatively poorly with the other tests of neglect, to the extent that some authors have questioned its status as a valid test of neglect. In this article, we re-examine this issue, employing a novel method for administering and analysing line bisection proposed by McIntosh et al. (2005). We report that the measure of attentional bias yielded by this new method (EWB) correlates significantly more highly with cancellation, copying and drawing measures than the classical line bisection error measure in a sample of 50 right-brain damaged patients. Furthermore when EWB was combined with a second measure that emerges from the new analysis (EWS), even higher correlations were obtained. A Principal Components Analysis found that EWB loaded highly on a major factor representing neglect asymmetry, while EWS loaded on a second factor which we propose may measure overall attentional investment. Finally, we found that tests of horizontal length and size perception were related poorly to other measures of neglect in our group. We conclude that this novel approach to interpreting line bisection behaviour provides a promising way forward for understanding the nature of neglect.

•

We used novel measures of attentional allocation to study line bisection behaviour in 50 right-brain damaged patients.

•

These measures were more sensitive to neglect than was directional bisection error, and they correlated more highly with other core tests of neglect.

•

We propose that one measure (EWB) reflects a lateral bias of attention, and the other measure (EWS) reflects overall attention.

•

Perceptual biases on size-matching and landmark tasks did not correlate highly with line bisection, or any other core tests of neglect.

Perceptual and response-related components of unilateral neglect may evolve independently of one another: evidence from five single-case studies

The Milner Landmark Task allows the disentanglement of perceptual and response-related components of unilateral neglect. If these two components reflect separate functional systems, then cases should be observed in which the two components evolve differently across time. To test this hypothesis we surveyed a continuous series of 21 right hemisphere stroke patients. Five patients from the sample were affected by unilateral neglect at the outset and could be submitted to repeated administrations of the Landmark task in the first weeks post stroke. Two versions of the task were used, Landmark-Manual and Landmark-Verbal, differing in the type of response required. Two patients showed independent changes in the perceptual and the response-related component of neglect, hence confirming the view of separate functional systems underlying them. Dissociations between the task versions were found, witnessing a role of the type of response. Unexpectedly, one patient showed an initial leftward deviation of the subjective midpoint of the stimulus line, which later reversed to a classical rightward deviation. We interpreted such a pattern in terms of co-existing "productive" and "negative" components of perceptual neglect.

Canceling out both the real and the spectral lines

Neglect patients typically show motor perseveration while canceling targets on the ipsilesional side. This behavior can be influenced by the presence vs. absence of targets on the (neglected) contralesional side (). As alternative explanations, the authors proposed (i) directional hypokinesia--the patient cannot perform reaching movements towards detected left-sided targets, and thus carries on canceling on the right side, and (ii) allochiria--the patient misperceives left-sided targets as located on the right side, and cancels them there. We report here data from a patient (EZ) that might confirm the second hypothesis. EZ was presented with 19 displays in which the number and position of cancellation targets on both sides were varied systematically. EZ showed motor perseveration while canceling, but this tendency did not vary across conditions. Interestingly though, EZ also drew cancellation marks in the empty space between the ipsilesional targets, and this phenomenon was significantly more intense when there were more targets on the neglected side. As EZ's comments suggested, such a behavior might reflect the attempt to cancel out delusional targets. Our speculation is that those objects were generated by allochiria.