The line bisection bias as a deficit of proportional reasoning - evidence from number line estimation in neglect

This study aimed to investigate whether neurological patients presenting with a bias in line bisection show specific problems in bisecting a line into two equal parts or their line bisection bias rather reflects a special case of a deficit in proportional reasoning more generally. In the latter case, the bias should also be observed for segmentations into thirds or quarters. To address this question, six neglect patients with a line bisection bias were administered additional tasks involving horizontal lines (e.g., segmentation into thirds and quarters, number line estimation, etc.). Their performance was compared to five neglect patients without a line bisection bias, 10 patients with right hemispheric lesions without neglect, and 32 healthy controls. Most interestingly, results indicated that neglect patients with a line bisection bias also overestimated segments on the left of the line (e.g., one third, one quarter) when dissecting lines into parts smaller than halves. In contrast, such segmentation biases were more nuanced when the required line segmentation was framed as a number line estimation task with either fractions or whole numbers. Taken together, this suggests a generalization of line bisection bias towards a segmentation or proportional processing bias, which is congruent with attentional weighting accounts of line bisection/neglect. As such, patients with a line bisection bias do not seem to have specific problems bisecting a line, but seem to suffer from a more general deficit processing proportions.

Spatial neglect in the digital age: Influence of presentation format on patients' test behavior

OBJECTIVE

Computerized neglect tests could significantly deepen our disorder-specific knowledge by effortlessly providing additional behavioral markers that are hardly or not extractable from existing paper-and-pencil versions. This study investigated how testing format (paper versus digital), and screen size (small, medium, large) affect the Center of cancelation (CoC) in right-hemispheric stroke patients in the Letters and the Bells cancelation task. Our second objective was to determine whether a machine learning approach could reliably classify patients with and without neglect based on their search speed, search distance, and search strategy.

METHOD

We compared the CoC measure of right hemisphere stroke patients with neglect in two cancelation tasks across different formats and display sizes. In addition, we evaluated whether three additional parameters of search behavior that became available through digitization are neglect-specific behavioral markers.

RESULTS

Patients' CoC was not affected by test format or screen size. Additional search parameters demonstrated lower search speed, increased search distance, and a more strategic search for neglect patients than for control patients without neglect.

CONCLUSION

The CoC seems robust to both test digitization and display size adaptations. Machine learning classification based on the additional variables derived from computerized tests succeeded in distinguishing stroke patients with spatial neglect from those without. The investigated additional variables have the potential to aid in neglect diagnosis, in particular when the CoC cannot be validly assessed (e.g., when the test is not performed to completion).

Virtual Reality and Eye-Tracking Assessment, and Treatment of Unilateral Spatial Neglect: Systematic Review and Future Prospects

Unilateral spatial neglect (USN) is a disorder characterized by the failure to report, respond to, or orient toward the contralateral side of space to a brain lesion. Current assessment methods often fail to discover milder forms, cannot differentiate between unilateral spatial neglect subtypes and lack ecological validity. There is also a need for treatment methods that target subtypes. Immersive virtual reality (VR) systems in combination with eye-tracking (ET) have the potential to overcome these shortcomings, by providing more naturalistic environments and tasks, with sensitive and detailed measures. This systematic review examines the state of the art of research on these technologies as applied in the assessment and treatment of USN. As we found no studies that combined immersive VR and ET, we reviewed these approaches individually. The review of VR included seven articles, the ET review twelve. The reviews revealed promising results. (1) All included studies found significant group-level differences for several USN measures. In addition, several studies found asymmetric behavior in VR and ET tasks for patients who did not show signs of USN in conventional tests. Particularly promising features were multitasking in complex VR environments and detailed eye-movement analysis. (2) No VR and only a few ET studies attempted to differentiate USN subtypes, although the technologies appeared appropriate. One ET study grouped USN participants using individual heatmaps, and another differentiated between subtypes on drawing tasks. Regarding (3) ecological validity, although no studies tested the prognostic validity of their assessment methods, VR and ET studies utilized naturalistic tasks and stimuli reflecting everyday situations. Technological characteristics, such as the field of view and refresh rate of the head-mounted displays, could be improved, though, to improve ecological validity. We found (4) no studies that utilized VR or ET technologies for USN treatment up until the search date of the 26th of February 2020. In conclusion, VR-ET-based systems show great potential for USN assessment. VR-ET holds great promise for treatment, for example, by monitoring behavior and adapting and tailoring to the individual person's needs and abilities. Future research should consider developing methods for individual subtypes and differential diagnostics to inform individual treatment programs.

Spatial Neglect Subtypes, Definitions and Assessment Tools: A Scoping Review

Objective: The objective of this scoping review was to capture the reported definitions for the subtypes of neglect post stroke and map the range of assessment tools employed for each neglect subtype.

Methods: EMBASE, Emcare, Medline, and psychINFO were searched from database inception. Searching included all allied terms and mesh headings for stroke, spatial neglect, measurement, screening tools, psychometric properties. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion. Primary studies with documented protocols of a spatial neglect tool for adults post stroke, with some aspect of validity or reliability were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed the documented protocols of each tool to determine the underlying subtypes and disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Results: There were 371 articles included with 292 tools used for the screening or diagnosis of neglect. The majority of studies (67%) included a tool that did not specify the neglect subtype being assessed, therefore an analysis of the underlying subtypes for each tool is presented.

Conclusions: There is no consistency with the terms used to refer to the syndrome of spatial neglect with over 200 different terms used within the included studies to refer to the syndrome as a whole or one of its subtypes. It is essential to unify the terminology and definition for each neglect subtype. There are hundreds of neglect tools available, however many are not able to differentiate presenting subtypes. It is important for clinicians and researchers to critically evaluate the neglect tools being used for the screening and diagnosis of neglect.

The 3s Spreadsheet Test version 2 for assessing egocentric viewer-centered and allocentric stimulus-centered spatial neglect

The present study established the norms of the 3 s Spreadsheet Test version 2 (3S-v2 Test) with 186 healthy adults, compared performance of 23 individuals with spatial neglect after right brain stroke to the norms, and examined the extent that allocentric neglect is independent from egocentric neglect. The task required in the 3S-v2 Test is to cross out the target digit "3" in a spreadsheet that contained 10 columns and 14 rows of digit strings, including 120 target digits and 720 non-target digits. Each target is categorized with respect to its location on the page (egocentric viewer-centered) and its position within the digit string (allocentric stimulus-centered). Patients completed the 3S-v2 Test, the Apples Test, and Scene Copying Test (a five-object figure copying test). Based on the neglect classification criteria of these three tests, 18 patients (78.3%) were identified with both forms of neglect, three patients (13.0%) had isolated egocentric neglect, and two (8.7%) had isolated allocentric neglect. Among patients who were determined as having allocentric neglect by a given test, we found no significant correlation between severity of allocentric neglect and stimulus location in the egocentric reference frame. Based on the present findings, we suggest that including the 3S-v2 Test, a functionally relevant task and different from the currently available tests, may increase the comprehensiveness of neglect assessment. In addition, allocentric neglect symptoms are independent of egocentric locations.

Allocentric Versus Egocentric Neglect in Stroke Patients: A Pilot Study Investigating the Assessment of Neglect Subtypes and Their Impacts on Functional Outcome Using Eye Tracking

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have investigated the assessment and functional impact of egocentric and allocentric neglect among stroke patients. This pilot study aimed to determine (1) whether allocentric and egocentric neglect could be dissociated among a sample of stroke patients using eye tracking; (2) the specific patterns of attention associated with each subtype; and (3) the nature of the relationship between neglect subtype and functional outcome.

METHOD

Twenty acute stroke patients were administered neuropsychological assessment batteries, a pencil-and-paper Apples Test to measure neglect subtype, and an adaptation of the Apples Test with an eye tracking measure. To test clinical discriminability, twenty age- and education-matched control participants were administered the eye tracking measure of neglect.

RESULTS

The eye tracking measure identified a greater number of individuals as having egocentric and/or allocentric neglect than the pencil-and-paper Apples Test. Classification of neglect subtype based on eye tracking performance was a significant predictor of functional outcome beyond that accounted for by the neuropsychological test performance and Apples Test neglect classification. Preliminary evidence suggests that patients with no neglect symptoms had superior functional outcomes compared with patients with neglect. Patients with combined egocentric and allocentric neglect had poorer functional outcomes than those with either subtype. Functional outcomes of patients with either allocentric or egocentric neglect did not differ significantly. The applications of our findings, to improve neglect detection, are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Results highlight the potential clinical utility of eye tracking for the assessment and identification of neglect subtype among stroke patients to predict functional outcomes. (JINS, 2019, 25, 479-489).

Ego- and allocentric visuospatial neglect: Dissociations, prevalence, and laterality in acute stroke

OBJECTIVE

Visuospatial neglect, whereby patients are unable to attend to stimuli on their contralesional side, is a neuropsychological condition commonly experienced after stroke. We aimed to investigate whether egocentric and allocentric neglect are functionally dissociable and differ in prevalence and laterality in the early poststroke period.

METHOD

A consecutive sample of 366 acute stroke patients completed the Broken Hearts test from the Oxford Cognitive Screen. We evaluated the association between egocentric and allocentric neglect and contrasted the prevalence and severity of left-sided versus right-sided neglect.

RESULTS

Clinically, we found a double dissociation between ego- and allocentric neglect, with 50% of the neglect patients showing only egocentric neglect and 25% only allocentric neglect. Left-sided egocentric neglect was more prevalent and more severe than was right-sided egocentric neglect, though right-sided neglect was still highly prevalent in the acute stroke sample (35%). Left-sided allocentric neglect was more severe but not more prevalent than was right-sided allocentric neglect. At 6 months, in a representative subsample of 160 patients, we found neglect recovery rates to be 81% and 74% for egocentric and allocentric neglect, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Dissociable ego- and allocentric neglect symptoms support a heterogeneous account of visuospatial neglect, which was shown to be highly prevalent for both the left and the right hemifields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Biased temporal order judgments in chronic neglect influenced by trunk position

Numerous studies have reported that temporal order perception is biased in neurological patients with extinction and neglect. These individuals tend to perceive two objectively simultaneous stimuli as occurring asynchronously, with the ipsilesional item being perceived as appearing prior to the contralesional item. Likewise, they report that two stimuli occurred simultaneously in situations where the contralesional item is presented substantially prior to the ipsilesional item. Therefore, they exhibit a biased point of subjective simultaneity (PSS). Here we demonstrate that the magnitude of this effect is modulated by the relative position of the stimuli with respect to the patient's trunk. This effect was only observed in patients who still exhibited neglect symptoms, and neither the pathological bias nor substantial modulation were observed in individuals who had recovered from neglect, those who never had neglect or neurologically healthy controls. Crucially, our design kept the retinal and head-centered coordinates of these stimuli constant, providing a pure measure for the influence of egocentric trunk position. This finding emphasizes the interaction of egocentric spatial position on the temporal symptoms observed in these individuals.

On the validity of lesion-behaviour mapping methods

Brain lesion studies have been criticised for producing partly heterogeneous results; especially the validity of statistical voxel-based lesion-behaviour mapping has been discussed. In fact, planning a lesion-behaviour mapping study is associated with many methodological degrees of freedom. In the present review, we argue that not the lesion-behaviour mapping method itself produces heterogeneous results, but rather its heterogeneous or even erroneous application. We outline which methodological pitfalls and trade-offs can affect the results of lesion analyses, addressing behavioural assessment, recruitment of patients, statistical analysis, neuroimaging, and interpretation with brain atlases. Further, we discuss several methods to actually test the validity of lesion-behaviour mapping. Each of these approaches has specific advantages and disadvantages. In combination, they provide valuable tools to answer most empirical questions related to the validity of lesion-behaviour mapping.

"Nonspatial" Attentional Deficits Interact with Spatial Position in Neglect

A widely debated question concerns whether or not spatial and nonspatial components of visual attention interact in attentional performance. Spatial neglect is a common consequence of brain injury where individuals fail to respond to stimuli presented on their contralesional side. It has been argued that, beyond the spatial bias, these individuals also tend to exhibit nonspatial perceptual deficits. Here we demonstrate that the "nonspatial" deficits affecting the temporal dynamics of attentional deployment are in fact modulated by spatial position. Specifically, we observed that the pathological attentional blink of chronic neglect is enhanced when stimuli are presented on the contralesional side of the trunk while keeping retinal and head-centered coordinates constant. We did not find this pattern in right brain-damaged patients without neglect or in patients who had recovered from neglect. Our work suggests that the nonspatial attentional deficits observed in neglect are heavily modulated by egocentric spatial position. This provides strong evidence against models that suggest independent modules for spatial and nonspatial attentional functions while also providing strong evidence that trunk position plays an important role in neglect.

Are All Spatial Reference Frames Egocentric? Reinterpreting Evidence for Allocentric, Object-Centered, or World-Centered Reference Frames

The use and neural representation of egocentric spatial reference frames is well-documented. In contrast, whether the brain represents spatial relationships between objects in allocentric, object-centered, or world-centered coordinates is debated. Here, I review behavioral, neuropsychological, neurophysiological (neuronal recording), and neuroimaging evidence for and against allocentric, object-centered, or world-centered spatial reference frames. Based on theoretical considerations, simulations, and empirical findings from spatial navigation, spatial judgments, and goal-directed movements, I suggest that all spatial representations may in fact be dependent on egocentric reference frames.

Spatial and temporal dynamics of visual search tasks distinguish subtypes of unilateral spatial neglect: Comparison of two cases with viewer-centered and stimulus-centered neglect

We developed a computerised test to evaluate unilateral spatial neglect (USN) using a touchscreen display, and estimated the spatial and temporal patterns of visual search in USN patients. The results between a viewer-centered USN patient and a stimulus-centered USN patient were compared. Two right-brain-damaged patients with USN, a patient without USN, and 16 healthy subjects performed a simple cancellation test, the circle test, a visuomotor search test, and a visual search test. According to the results of the circle test, one USN patient had stimulus-centered neglect and a one had viewer-centered neglect. The spatial and temporal patterns of these two USN patients were compared. The spatial and temporal patterns of cancellation were different in the stimulus-centered USN patient and the viewer-centered USN patient. The viewer-centered USN patient completed the simple cancellation task, but paused when transferring from the right side to the left side of the display. Unexpectedly, this patient did not exhibit rightward attention bias on the visuomotor and visual search tests, but the stimulus-centered USN patient did. The computer-based assessment system provided information on the dynamic visual search strategy of patients with USN. The spatial and temporal pattern of cancellation and visual search were different across the two patients with different subtypes of neglect.

Egocentric representations of space co-exist with allocentric representations: evidence from spatial neglect

The brain transforms sensory input to motor coordinates to accommodate for changes of posture and gaze direction. Neurophysiological and neuropsychological evidence supports the existence of multiple representations of space. A debated issue regards whether objects that we see are encoded in egocentric frames only or also maintain an object-centered frame of reference. Previous clinical studies were unable to discriminate between these models as the stimuli used to determine object-based (allocentric) biases are contaminated by body-centered (egocentric) effects. To address this, we used stimuli where allocentric side was elicited by gestalt configuration rather than egocentric location. We then displayed these stimuli at different egocentric positions allowing us to independently measure the effects of allocentric position, egocentric position as well as their interaction. In a group of stroke patients with neglect we demonstrate that allocentric biases are modulated as a function of egocentric position. These findings help adjudicate between the different models of space representation, demonstrating that specific allocentric deficits not only exist but also often co-exist with egocentric biases.

Object-based neglect in number processing

Recent evidence suggests that neglect patients seem to have particular problems representing relatively smaller numbers corresponding to the left part of the mental number line. However, while this indicates space-based neglect for representational number space little is known about whether and - if so - how object-based neglect influences number processing.

To evaluate influences of object-based neglect in numerical cognition, a group of neglect patients and two control groups had to compare two-digit numbers to an internally represented standard. Conceptualizing two-digit numbers as objects of which the left part (i.e., the tens digit should be specifically neglected) we were able to evaluate object-based neglect for number magnitude processing.

Object-based neglect was indicated by a larger unit-decade compatibility effect actually reflecting impaired processing of the leftward tens digits. Additionally, faster processing of within- as compared to between-decade items provided further evidence suggesting particular difficulties in integrating tens and units into the place-value structure of the Arabic number system.

In summary, the present study indicates that, in addition to the spatial representation of number magnitude, also the processing of place-value information of multi-digit numbers seems specifically impaired in neglect patients.

Is 'object-centred neglect' a homogeneous entity?

The nature of object-centred (allocentric) neglect and the possibility of dissociating it from egocentric (subject-centred) forms of neglect are controversial. Originally, allocentric neglect was described by Gainotti, D'Erme, Monteleone & Silveri (1986) and Gainotti, Messerli, & Tissot (1972) in patients who reproduced all the elements of a multi-object scene, but left unfinished the left side of one or more of them. More recently, however, Karnath, Mandler, and Clavagnier (2011) have claimed that the severity of allocentric neglect worsens when a complex 'object' shifts from an ipsilesional to a contralesional egocentric position. On the basis of these and of other clinical data, showing that allocentric and egocentric neglect are strongly associated, they have questioned the possibility of dissociating these two forms of neglect, suggesting that egocentric and allocentric neglect constitute different manifestations of the same disturbed system. Since these statements were inconsistent with the clinical findings which had prompted the construct of object-centred neglect, we checked in a group of right brain-damaged patients, who had copied the original multi-object scene, if the degree of neglect for the left side of figures varied as a function of their position on the horizontal axis. Furthermore, we reviewed all papers where copies of other multi-object scenes had been reported. Results of both studies failed to confirm the assumption of a relationship between spatial location of the stimulus and severity of object-centred neglect. This discrepancy between our data and those obtained by Karnath et al. (2011) could be due to the characteristics of stimuli and of procedures used to evaluate 'object-centred' neglect. If the stimulus is complex and the task requires its thorough exploration, the spatial location of the stimulus will influence the severity of 'object-centred neglect'. If, on the contrary, the stimulus is simple and can be identified with few eye fixations, the spatial location of the stimulus should not influence the severity of 'object-centred neglect'. In any case, our data confirm the possibility of dissociating allocentric from egocentric neglect.

Allocentric neglect strongly associated with egocentric neglect

Following brain injury, many patients experience egocentric spatial neglect, where they fail to respond to stimuli on the contralesional side of their body. On the other hand, allocentric, object-based neglect refers to the symptom of ignoring the contralesional side of objects, regardless of the objects' egocentric position. There is an established tradition for considering these two phenomena as both behaviorally and anatomically dissociable. However, several studies and some theoretical work have suggested that these rather reflect two aspects of a unitary underlying disorder. Furthermore, in a recent large study Yue et al. [Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 93 (2012) 156] reported that acute allocentric neglect is only observed in cases where substantial egocentric neglect is also present. In a new sample of right hemisphere stroke patients, we attempted to control for potential confounds by using a novel continuous measure for allocentric neglect (in addition to a recently developed continuous measure for egocentric neglect). Our findings suggest a strong association between egocentric and allocentric neglect. Consistent with the work of Yue et al. (2012), we found allocentric behavioral deficits only in conjunction with egocentric deficits as well as a large corresponding overlap for the anatomical regions associated with egocentric and with allocentric neglect. We discuss how different anatomical and behavioral findings can be explained in a unified physiologically plausible framework, whereby allocentric and egocentric effects interact.