Cortex
Volume 46, Issue 5 , Pages 602-612, May 2010

Visuospatial asymmetry and non-spatial attention in subacute stroke patients with and without neglect

  • Marlies E. van Kessel

      Affiliations

    • Sint Maartenskliniek Research, Development and Education, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Sint Maartenskliniek Research, Development and Education, PO Box 9011, 6500 GM Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • ,
  • Ilse J.W. van Nes

      Affiliations

    • Sint Maartenskliniek Research, Development and Education, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Wiebo H. Brouwer

      Affiliations

    • University Medical Centre Groningen, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Alexander C.H. Geurts

      Affiliations

    • Sint Maartenskliniek Research, Development and Education, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Luciano Fasotti

      Affiliations

    • Sint Maartenskliniek Research, Development and Education, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Received 16 July 2008; received in revised form 20 January 2009 and 15 April 2009; accepted 5 June 2009. published online 10 July 2009.

Action editor Giuseppe Vallar

Abstract 

Asymmetry in performance and an association with non-lateralized attention are often mentioned as two important aspects of the clinical manifestation of visuospatial neglect. Both these aspects were investigated in 21 left (LH) and 24 right hemisphere (RH) stroke patients and in 20 healthy subjects. The letter and star cancellation subtests of the Behavioural Inattention Task (BIT) and a computerized visual reaction time task (CVRT) with stimuli presented either left, central or right in extrapersonal space were administered. In LH patients, the calculation of BIT asymmetry scores allowed a better distinction between patients with and without neglect than raw omission scores. However, in RH patients, raw and asymmetry scores led to similar classifications. In the CVRT, raw and asymmetry scores for the number of omissions also produced identical classifications. Thus, the computation of asymmetry scores for omissions did not substantially refine the diagnosis of neglect. On the other hand, more patients were classified as neglect patients by using CVRT reaction time (RT) asymmetry scores than by using BIT or CVRT omission scores. Ipsilesional RT's were chosen as a measure of general, non-lateralized attention. The ipsilesional RT's of the LH and RH patients did not differ from the healthy subjects' lateral RT's. However, within the RH group, patients with both RT asymmetries and BIT scores above cut-off level showed longer ipsilesional RT's than patients with defective RT asymmetries but normal BIT scores. This supports the idea of an interaction between lateralized and non-lateralized attentional components in neglect, in which the presence of general attentional deficits exacerbates the severity of neglect symptoms. RT tasks may contribute to the detection of asymmetries in visuospatial attention in patients with subclinical neglect symptoms, who might compensate for their lateralized deficit in paper-and-pencil tasks employing intact general attention.

Keywords: Hemi-inattention, Behavioural Inattention Task, Reaction time task, General attention

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0010-9452(09)00185-3

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2009.06.004

Cortex
Volume 46, Issue 5 , Pages 602-612, May 2010