Significance of paradoxical leftward error of line bisection in left unilateral spatial neglect

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.

The eyes have it: Oculomotor exploration and line bisection in neglect

In this issue of Cortex, Ishiai et al. (2006) report the eye movements of patients with left neglect during the bisection of lines of different lengths. This is the latest in a series of papers from Ishiai's group, which form an important corpus of data on the oculomotor behaviour of neglect patients during line bisection and related tasks. In this article, I argue that these data should critically constrain theoretical models of bisection errors in neglect, but that these constraints have been applied rarely in practice. First, I briefly introduce bisection behaviour in neglect and describe some of the models proposed to account for its character. I then consider the implications for these models of Ishiai and colleagues' observations. Finally, I outline a novel view of the bisection task that is more compatible with their observations.

Weights and measures: A new look at bisection behaviour in neglect

Horizontal line bisection is a ubiquitous task in the investigation of visual neglect. Patients with left neglect typically make rightward errors that increase with line length and for lines at more leftward positions. For short lines, or for lines presented in right space, these errors may 'cross over' to become leftward. We have taken a new approach to these phenomena by employing a different set of dependent and independent variables for their description. Rather than recording bisection error, we record the lateral position of the response within the workspace. We have studied how this varies when the locations of the left and right endpoints are manipulated independently. Across 30 patients with left neglect, we have observed a characteristic asymmetry between the 'weightings' accorded to the two endpoints, such that responses are less affected by changes in the location of the left endpoint than by changes in the location of the right. We show that a simple endpoint weightings analysis accounts readily for the effects of line length and spatial position, including cross-over effects, and leads to an index of neglect that is more sensitive than the standard measure. We argue that this novel approach is more parsimonious than the standard model and yields fresh insights into the nature of neglect impairment.

Image of a line is not shrunk but neglected Absence of crossover in unilateral spatial neglect

Patients with left unilateral spatial neglect following right hemisphere lesions usually err rightward when bisecting a horizontal line. For very short lines (e.g. 25 mm), however, leftward errors or seemingly 'right' neglect is often observed. To explain this paradox of crossover in the direction of errors, rather complicated models have been introduced as to the distribution of attention. Neglect may be hypothesized to occur in representational process of a line or estimation of the midpoint on the formed image, or both. We devised a line image task using a computer display with a touch panel and approached the representational image of a line to be bisected. Three patients with typical left neglect were presented with a line and forced to see its whole extent with cueing to the left endpoint. After disappearance of the line, they pointed to the right endpoint, the left endpoint, or the subjective midpoint according to their representational image. The line image between the reproduced right and left endpoints was appropriately formed for the 200 mm lines. However, the images for the shorter 25 and 100 mm lines were longer than the physical lengths with overextension to the left side. These results proved the context effect that short lines may be perceived longer when they are presented in combination with longer lines. One of our patients had an extensive lesion that involved the frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes, and the other two had a lesion restricted to the posterior right hemisphere. The image for a fully perceived line may be represented far enough into left space even when left neglect occurs after a lesion that involves the right parietal lobe. The patients with neglect placed the subjective midpoint rightward from the centre of the stimulus line for the 100 and 200 mm lines and leftward for the 25 mm lines. This crossover of bisection errors disappeared when the displacement of the subjective midpoint was measured from the centre of the representational line image. Left neglect may occur consistently in estimation of the subjective midpoint on the representational image, which may be explained by a simple rightward bias of attentional distribution.