Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Static versus dynamic judgments of spatial extent

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research exploring how scanning affects judgments of spatial extent has produced conflicting results. We conducted four experiments on line bisection judgments measuring ocular and pointing behavior, with line length, position, speed, acceleration, and direction of scanning manipulated. Ocular and pointing judgments produced distinct patterns. For static judgments (i.e., no scanning), the eyes were sensitive to position and line length with pointing much less sensitive to these factors. For dynamic judgments (i.e., scanning the line), bisection biases were influenced by the speed of scanning but not acceleration, while both ocular and pointing results varied with scan direction. We suggest that static and dynamic probes of spatial judgments are different. Furthermore, the substantial differences seen between static and dynamic bisection suggest the two invoke different neural processes for computing spatial extent for ocular and pointing judgments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We have not included studies which used reading direction as a proxy for scanning (Chokron and Imbert 1993; Chokron and Agostini 1995; Nicholls and Roberts 2002; Speedie et al. 2002). These studies, where they agree with more explicit scanning paradigms, do not provide new information about scanning. Where they differ, however, it is unclear whether to ascribe the variances to scanning or to different strategies related to reading direction.

  2. First fixations in free viewing represent an orienting response to the appearance of the line. For scanning, however, the line is on-screen prior to FF. We should be cautious comparing results for FF between Exp. 1 and all other experiments. The same is not true, however, for LF and PB—differences in either of these measures imply differences in static versus dynamic judgments.

References

  • Adair JC, Na DL, Schwartz RL, Heilman KM (2003) Caloric stimulation in neglect: evaluation of response as a function of neglect type. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 9:983–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers D, Heilman KM (1980) Pseudoneglect: effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia 18:491–498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw JL, Nettleton NC, Nathan G, Wilson L (1983) Head and body space to left and right, front and rear. II. visuotactual and kinesthetic studies and left-side underestimation. Neuropsychologia 21:475–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw JL, Nathan G, Nettleton NC, Wilson L, Pierson J (1987a) Why is there a left side underestimation in rod bisection? Neuropsychologia 25:735–738

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw JL, Nettleton NC, Wilson LE, Bradshaw CS (1987b) Line bisection by left-handed preschoolers: a phenomenon of symmetrical neglect. Brain Cogn 6:377–385

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brodie EE, Dunn EM (2005) Visual line bisection in sinistrals and dextrals as a function of hemispace, hand, and scan direction. Brain Cogn 58:149–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brodie EE, Pettigrew LE (1996) Is left always right? Directional deviations in visual line bisection as a function of hand and initial scanning direction. Neuropsychologia 34:467–470

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buneo CA, Jarvis MR, Batista AP, Andersen RA (2002) Direct visuomotor transformations for reaching. Nature 416:632–636

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butter CM, Mark VW, Heilman KM (1988) An experimental analysis of factors underlying neglect in line bisection. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 51:1581–1583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiba Y, Yamaguchi A, Eto F (2006) Assessment of sensory neglect: a study using moving images. Neuropsych Rehab 16:641–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi KM, Lee BH, Lee SC, Ku BD, Kim E, Suh MK et al (2007) Influence of moving background on line bisection performance in the normal elderly versus patients with hemispatial neglect. Am J Phys Med Rehab 86:515–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chokron S, Agostini MD (1995) Reading habits and line bisection: a developmental approach. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 3:51–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chokron S, Imbert M (1993) Influence of reading habits on line bisection. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 1:219–222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chokron S, Bartolomeo P, Perenin MT, Helft G, Imbert M (1998) Scanning direction and line bisection: a study of normal subjects and unilateral neglect patients with opposite reading habits. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 7:173–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Danckert J, Ferber S (2006) Revisiting unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia 44:987–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Desmurget M, Turner RS, Prablanc C, Russo GS, Alexander GE, Grafton ST (2005) Updating target location at the end of an orienting saccade affects the characteristics of simple point-to-point movements. J Exp Psych Human Percept Perf 31:1510–1536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunai J, Bennett K, Fotiades A, Kritikos A, Castiello U (1999) Modulation of unilateral neglect as a function of direction of object motion. Neuroreport 10:1041–1047

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Failla CV, Sheppard DM, Bradshaw JL (2003) Age and responding-hand related changes in performance of neurologically normal subjects on the line-bisection and chimeric-faces tasks. Brain Cogn 52:353–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fink GR, Marshall JC, Weiss PH, Toni I, Zilles K (2002) Task instructions influence the cognitive strategies involved in line bisection judgements: evidence from modulated neural mechanisms revealed by fMRI. Neuropsychologia 40:119–130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fujii T, Fukatsu R, Yamadori A, Kimura I (1995) Effect of age on the line bisection test. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 17:941–944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fukatsu R, Fujii T, Kimura I, Saso S, Kogure K (1990) Effects of hand and spatial conditions on visual line bisection. Tohoku J Exp Med 161:329–333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halligan PW, Marshall JC (1993) The bisection of horizontal and radial lines: a case study of normal controls and ten patients with left visuospatial neglect. Int J Neurosci 70:149–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey M, Milner AD, Roberts RC (1995) An investigation of hemispatial neglect using the landmark task. Brain Cogn 27:59–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey M, Pool TD, Roberson MJ, Olk B (2000) Effects of visible and invisible cueing procedures on perceptual judgments in young and elderly subjects. Neuropsychologia 38:22–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatta T, Yamamoyto M (1986) Hemispheric asymmetries in a tactile bisection task: effects of hemispace of presentation. Neuropsychologia 24:265–269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ishiai S, Furukawa T, Tsukagoshi H (1987) Eye-fixation patterns in homonymous hemianopia and unilateral spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia 25:675–679

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ishiai S, Furukawa T, Tsukagoshi H (1989) Visuospatial processes of line bisection and the mechanisms underlying unilateral spatial neglect. Brain 112:1485–1502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ishiai S, Sugishita M, Mitani K, Ishizawa M (1992) Leftward search in left unilateral spatial neglect. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 55:40–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ishiai S, Koyama Y, Seki K, Nakayama T (1998) What is line bisection in unilateral spatial neglect? Analysis of perceptual and motor aspects in line bisection tasks. Brain Cogn 36:239–252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ishiai S, Koyama Y, Seki K, Hayashi K, Izumi Y (2006) Approaches to subjective midpoint of horizontal lines in unilateral spatial neglect. Cortex 42:685–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jewell G, McCourt ME (2000) Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia 38:93–110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karnath H-O, Fetter M, Dichgans J (1996) Ocular exploration of space as a function of neck proprioceptive and vestibular input—observations in normal subjects and patients with spatial neglect after parietal lesions. Exp Brain Res 109:333–342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kerkhoff G, Schindler I, Keller I, Marquardt C (1999) Visual background motion reduces size distortion in spatial neglect. Neuroreport 10:319–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kerkhoff G, Keller I, Ritter V, Marquardt C (2006) Repetitive optokinetic stimulation induces lasting recovery from visual neglect. Restor Neurol Neurosci 24:357–369

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levander M, Tegnér R, Caneman G (1993) Tactile line-bisection in normal subjects. Percept Mot Skills 76:831–836

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luh KE (1995) Line bisection and perceptual asymmetries in normal individuals—what you see is not what you get. Neuropsychology 9:435–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattingley JB, Bradshaw JL, Bradshaw JA (1994) Horizontal visual motion modulates focal attention in left unilateral spatial neglect. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 57:1228–1235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCourt ME, Jewell G (1999) Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia 37:843–855

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Medendorp WP, Goltz HC, Vilis T, Crawford JD (2003) Gaze-centered updating of visual space in human parietal cortex. J Neurosci 23:6209–6214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mennemeier M, Vezey E, Chatterjee A, Rapcsak SZ, Heilman KM (1997) Contributions of the left and right cerebral hemispheres to line bisection. Neuropsychologia 35:703–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mennemeier M, Rapcsak SZ, Pierce C, Vezey E (2001) Crossover by line length and spatial location. Brain Cogn 47:412–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milner AD, Brechmann M, Pagliarini L (1992) To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects. Neuropsychologia 30:515–526

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nichelli P, Rinaldi M, Cubelli R (1989) Selective spatial attention and length representation in normal subjects and in patients with unilateral spatial neglect. Brain Cogn 9:57–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls MER, Roberts GR (2002) Can free-viewing perceptual asymmetries be explained by scanning, pre-motor or attentional biases? Cortex 38:113–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls MER, Mattingley JB, Berberovic N, Smith A, Bradshaw JL (2004) An investigation of the relationship between free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for vertical and horizontal stimuli. Cogn Brain Res 19:289–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls MER, Mattingley JB, Bradshaw JL (2005) The effect of strategy on pseudoneglect for luminance judgements. Cogn Brain Res 25:71–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen KE, Intriligator J, Barton JJ (1999) Spatial representation in the normal visual field: a study of hemifield line bisection. Neuropsychologia 37:267–277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer P, Dunai J, Morris ME (2006) Understanding the effects of moving visual stimuli on unilateral neglect following stroke. Brain Cogn 60:156–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reuter-Lorenz PA, Posner MI (1990) Components of neglect from right-hemisphere damage: an analysis of line bisection. Neuropsychologia 28:327–333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reuter-Lorenz PA, Kinsbourne M, Moscovitch M (1990) Hemispheric control of spatial attention. Brain Cogn 12:240–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riestra AR, Womack KB, Crucian GP, Heilman KM (2002) Is the middle between both halves? Midpoint location and segment size estimation in neglect. Neurology 59:1580–1584

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubens AB (1985) Caloric stimulation and unilateral visual neglect. Neurology 35:1019–1024

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rueckert L, Deravanesian A, Baboorian D, Lacalamita A, Repplinger M (2002) Pseudoneglect and the cross-over effect. Neuropsychologia 40:162–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sampaio E, Chokron S (1992) Pseudoneglect and reversed pseudoneglect among left-handers and right-handers. Neuropsychologia 30:797–805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuett S, Kentridge RW, Zihl J, Heywood CAS (2009) Is the origin of the hemianopic line bisection error purely visual? Evidence from eye movements in simulated hemianopia. Vis Res 49:1668–1680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Speedie LJ, Wertman E, Verfaellie M, Butter C, Silberman N, Liechtenstein M et al (2002) Reading direction and spatial neglect. Cortex 38:59–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Varnava A, Halligan PW (2007) Influence of age and sex on line bisection: a study of normal performance with implications for visuospatial neglect. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn Sec B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 14:571–585

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe HK (1923) On the estimation of the middle of lines. Am J Psychol 34:313–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada Discovery and Canada Research Chairs grants to JD, an NSERC PGSD to MH, and an NSERC USRA to DV.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Marc Hurwitz, Derick Valadao & James Danckert

Authors
  1. Marc Hurwitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Derick Valadao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Danckert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Danckert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hurwitz, M., Valadao, D. & Danckert, J. Static versus dynamic judgments of spatial extent. Exp Brain Res 209, 271–286 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2539-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2539-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation