These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Multiple reference frames in neglect? An investigation of the object-centred frame and the dissociation between "near" and "far" from the body by use of a mirror.
    Author: Laeng B, Brennen T, Johannessen K, Holmen K, Elvestad R.
    Journal: Cortex; 2002 Sep; 38(4):511-28. PubMed ID: 12465666.
    Abstract:
    In this single case study of a man (AE) who suffered a right hemisphere stroke we showed the co-existence of neglect within different spatial frames: (a) In left hemispace and (b) in 'far' versus 'near' space, both as defined from the patient's viewpoint, as well as (c) for the left side of an object (as defined from an object-centred view). In the experiment, AE's latencies to name the colour of two cubes, each located in one hemispace, were measured. In some conditions, the cubes were placed on a table but in other conditions each cube was held in one hand of an experimenter who could either face the patient or show the cubes while her back was turned towards him. One prediction was that AE would show longer latencies for cubes in left hemispace; however, if object-centred neglect also occurred, then latencies should be even longer for cubes held in the experimenter's left hand. In order to reveal the presence of neglect for 'far' versus 'near' space, the cubes could also be positioned either near to (i.e. reaching distance) or far from the patient (i.e., several metres out of reach), by moving the table or the experimenter. Finally, in some conditions, AE looked at the cubes into a mirror that was positioned far away from his body. Because external objects seen in a mirror can be 'near' the patient's body, the patient actually looked at a 'far' location (i.e. the surface of the mirror) to see an object that is 'near'. The experiment confirmed the presence of all forms of neglect, since AE not only named the colour of a cube seen in his left hemispace more slowly than in right hemispace, but latencies increased for a cube held by the experimenter in her left hand and in left hemispace (both when the left hand was seen directly or as a mirror reflection). Finally, AE's performance was worse for 'far' than 'near' locations, when the cubes were physically located near his body (i.e., within "grasping" space) but seen in the mirror.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]