Elsevier

Neuropsychologia

Volume 45, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 1982-1984
Neuropsychologia

Current controversies
The modular architecture of the neglect syndrome: Implications for action control in visual neglect

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.01.020Get rights and content

Abstract

In our recent review of action control deficits in hemispatial neglect we concluded that many patients with the disorder have deficits in visuomotor control [Coulthard, E., Parton, A., & Husain, M. (2006). Action control in visual neglect. Neuropsychologia, 44(13), 2717–2733]. This conclusion has been questioned and it has been argued instead that there are no action deficits in neglect [Himmelbach, M., Karnath, H.-O., & Perenin, M.-T. (2007). Action control is not affected by spatial neglect: A comment on Coulthard et al. Neuropsychologia, 45(8), 1979–1981]. We proposed that rather than being specific to the neglect syndrome, action control deficits are more likely to relate to lesion location. Although many of these impairments may contribute to the manifestation of neglect, they may also occur in brain-damaged patients without the condition. In this article, we explore this framework further, discussing how neglect behaviour may emerge from damage to a set of visuomotor or cognitive modules, or their connections. Central to our view is the idea that the critical combination of deficits leading to neglect varies considerably between cases, and that visuomotor or cognitive modules disrupted in the syndrome may not, in fact, be specific to neglect.

Section snippets

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by The Wellcome Trust.

References (22)

  • L.J. Buxbaum et al.

    Hemispatial neglect: Subtypes, neuroanatomy, and disability

    Neurology

    (2004)
  • Cited by (20)

    • Anatomy and disorders of the spatial attention systems

      2021, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience: Second Edition
    • Visual and motor neglect: Clinical and neurocognitive aspects

      2021, Revue Neurologique
      Citation Excerpt :

      Given the strong influence of spatial position on neglect signs, it is important to carefully center the test sheets on the patient's midsagittal plane. Not all patients consistently show neglect on all these tests, consistent with the probable multi-component nature of this syndrome [36,37], with different patterns of deficits occurring in different patients [38,39]. To achieve good diagnostic sensitivity, it is thus important to have patients perform several visuospatial tests.

    • Component deficits of visual neglect: “Magnetic” attraction of attention vs. impaired spatial working memory

      2018, Neuropsychologia
      Citation Excerpt :

      When asked to cross out targets scattered on a sheet, neglect patients typically restrict their exploration to the right part of the sheet and omit cancelling left-sided targets (Albert, 1973). The precise mechanisms leading to neglect behavior are object of debate since almost a century, but some consensus is now emerging that distinct component deficits of neglect may variously dissociate in some patients (Barbieri and De Renzi, 1989; Binder et al., 1992; Charras et al., 2012; Heilman et al., 2002; Mesulam, 1985, 2000; Vallar, 1998), or combine and interact in others (Bartolomeo, 2007; Coulthard et al., 2007; Gainotti et al., 1991; Karnath, 1988). As a consequence, the focus of research is now shifting to the identification of these component deficits, to the study of their modes of interactions and the exploration of their anatomical bases.

    • Visuospatial neglect in action

      2012, Neuropsychologia
      Citation Excerpt :

      Karnath et al. (1997) suggested that the deviations of pointing movements towards the ipsilesional side, sometimes observed in neglect patients (e.g., Goodale et al., 1990), seem characteristic of patients with optic ataxia. Clinically neglect and optic ataxia are clearly distinguishable (although they may co-occur; Coulthard, Parton, & Husain, 2007): neglect is diagnosed based on rightward biases in paper and pencil tests (e.g., visual search, copying and line bisection) whereas optic ataxia patients show deficits in reaching towards peripheral locations with no deficits in peripersonal space exploration tasks (Coulthard, Parton, & Husain, 2007; Himmelbach et al., 2007; Perenin, 1997). So what is the relationship between the lesions of patients with optic ataxia and the visuomotor deficits found in neglect patients?

    • Impaired delayed but preserved immediate grasping in a neglect patient with parieto-occipital lesions

      2011, Neuropsychologia
      Citation Excerpt :

      Patients with neglect typically present with loss of awareness in the contralesional side of space and their lesions most frequently overlap in the inferior parietal lobe (Mort et al., 2003) and/or superior temporal gyrus (Karnath, Berger, Küker, & Rorden, 2004). Although it has been suggested that such patients exhibit visuomotor deficits (Coulthard, Parton, & Husain, 2006) the impact of neglect on action tasks has been a hotly debated topic in the last decade (Coulthard Parton, & Husain, 2007; Himmelbach, Karnath, & Perenin, 2007). Very briefly, while some authors argue that lesions in the inferior parietal role lead to motor impairments in neglect patients (Mattingley, Husain, Rorden, Kennard, & Driver, 1998), others argue that even severe neglect patients in the acute stage of their stroke can accurately reach to a target presented in their neglected field (e.g., Himmelbach & Karnath, 2003).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text