Cortex
Volume 47, Issue 3 , Pages 353-366, March 2011

Prism adaptation does not change the rightward spatial preference bias found with ambiguous stimuli in unilateral neglect

  • Margarita Sarri

      Affiliations

    • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK
    • Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, UK.
  • ,
  • Richard Greenwood

      Affiliations

    • Regional Neurological Rehabilitation Unit, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK
  • ,
  • Lalit Kalra

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Medicine, Denmark Hill Campus, London, UK
  • ,
  • Jon Driver

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, UK

Received 27 April 2009; received in revised form 1 October 2009 and 15 December 2009; accepted 29 December 2009. published online 22 February 2010.

Action editor Yves Rossetti

Abstract 

Previous research has shown that prism adaptation (prism adaptation) can ameliorate several symptoms of spatial neglect after right-hemisphere damage. But the mechanisms behind this remain unclear. Recently we reported that prisms may increase leftward awareness for neglect in a task using chimeric visual objects, despite apparently not affecting awareness in a task using chimeric emotional faces (Sarri et al., 2006). Here we explored potential reasons for this apparent discrepancy in outcome, by testing further whether the lack of a prism effect on the chimeric face task task could be explained by: i) the specific category of stimuli used (faces as opposed to objects); ii) the affective nature of the stimuli; and/or iii) the particular task implemented, with the chimeric face task requiring forced-choice judgements of lateral ‘preference’ between pairs of identical, but left/right mirror-reversed chimeric face tasks (as opposed to identification for the chimeric object task). We replicated our previous pattern of no impact of prisms on the emotional chimeric face task here in a new series of patients, while also similarly finding no beneficial impact on another lateral ‘preference’ measure that used non-face non-emotional stimuli, namely greyscale gradients. By contrast, we found the usual beneficial impact of prism adaptation (prism adaptation) on some conventional measures of neglect, and improvements for at least some patients in a different face task, requiring explicit discrimination of the chimeric or non-chimeric nature of face stimuli. The new findings indicate that prism therapy does not alter spatial biases in neglect as revealed by ‘lateral preference tasks’ that have no right or wrong answer (requiring forced-choice judgements on left/right mirror-reversed stimuli), regardless of whether these employ face or non-face stimuli. But our data also show that prism therapy can beneficially modulate some aspects of visual awareness in spatial neglect not only for objects, but also for face stimuli, in some cases.

Keywords: Spatial neglect, Prism adaptation, Chimerics, Faces, Spatial bias

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(10)00030-4

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2010.01.006

Cortex
Volume 47, Issue 3 , Pages 353-366, March 2011