Elsevier

Brain and Cognition

Volume 47, Issue 3, December 2001, Pages 412-422
Brain and Cognition

Regular Article
Crossover by Line Length and Spatial Location

https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.2001.1317Get rights and content

Abstract

It is well known that line length has a systematic influence on line bisection error in neglect. Most patients with neglect misbisect long lines on the same side of true center as their brain lesion but then cross over on short lines, misbisecting them on the opposite side (i.e., crossover by line length). What is less recognized is that the spatial location of lines relative to the viewer can similarly induce a crossover effect when one considers line bisection error scores that have been averaged across individual line lengths. Patients with right hemisphere injury and neglect classically make averaged line bisection errors that fall right of true center on lines located either at midline or to the left of the viewer; however, we observed that the averaged line bisection error can fall left of true center when lines are located to the right of the viewer (i.e., crossover by spatial location). We hypothesized that crossover by both line length and spatial location stem from systematic errors in magnitude estimation, i.e., perceived line length. We tested predictions based on this hypothesis by examining how the crossover effect by line length is altered by the spatial location of lines along a horizontal axis relative to the viewer. Participants included patients with unilateral lesions of the right and left cerebral hemispheres and age-appropriate normal subjects. All groups demonstrated a crossover effect by line length at the midline location but the effect was altered by placing lines to the right and left of the viewer. In particular, patients with right hemisphere injury and neglect crossed-over across a broader range of line lengths when the lines were located to the right of the viewer rather than at either midline or left of the viewer. It is proposed that mental representations of stimulus magnitude are altered in neglect, in addition to mental representations of space, and that traditional accounts of neglect can be enhanced by including the psychophysical concept of magnitude estimation.

References (41)

  • M. Mennemeier et al.

    Contributions of the left and right cerebral hemispheres to line bisection

    Neuropsychologia

    (1997)
  • A.D. Milner et al.

    Line bisection errors in visual neglect: Misguided action or size distortion?

    Neuropsychologia

    (1993)
  • A.D. Milner et al.

    To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects

    Neuropsychologia

    (1992)
  • P. Nichelli et al.

    Selective spatial attention and length representation in normal subjects and in patients with unilateral spatial neglect

    Brain and Cognition

    (1989)
  • M.I. Posner et al.

    Attentional network

    Trends in Neuroscience

    (1994)
  • P.A. Reuter-Lorenz et al.

    Hemispheric control of spatial attention

    Brain and Cognition

    (1990)
  • M.J. Riddoch et al.

    The effect of cueing on unilateral neglect

    Neuropsychologia

    (1983)
  • R. Werth et al.

    Compression and lateral shift of mental coordinate systems in a line bisection task

    Neuropsychologia

    (1988)
  • B. Anderson

    A mathematical model of line bisection behaviour in neglect

    Brain

    (1996)
  • D. Algom et al.

    Range and regression, loudness scales and loudness processing: Toward a context-bound psychophysicist

    Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance

    (1990)
  • Cited by (0)

    We thank Drs. Anjan Chatterjee and Britt Anderson. Many of the ideas in this article either originated or were enhanced through our discussion. Dr. Chatterjee brought our attention to Hollingworth's (1909) chapter on contexts effects. Dr. Anderson provided an extensive critique of the article prior to submission. Mark Mennemeier is supported by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke 1R29NS31815; partial support was also provided by the University of Arizona McDonnel Pew Cognitive Neurocognitive Neuroscience Center and VA Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona. Data were presented at the 26th Annual International Neuropsychological Society Meeting, February, 1998, Honolulu, Hawaii (Mennemeier et al., 1998).

    Address correspondence and reprint requests to Mark Mennemeier, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, UAB, Spain Rehabilitation Center—Room 530, 1717 6th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35233-7330. E-mail: [email protected]. Fax: (205) 975-4691.

    View full text