Skip Navigation


Brain Advance Access originally published online on November 29, 2005
Brain 2006 129(1):168-181; doi:10.1093/brain/awh690
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
129/1/168    most recent
awh690v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Snow, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Mattingley, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Snow, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Mattingley, J. B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2005). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Goal-driven selective attention in patients with right hemisphere lesions: how intact is the ipsilesional field?

Jacqueline C. Snow and Jason B. Mattingley

Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, School of Behavioural Science, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

Correspondence to: Jason B. Mattingley, Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, School of Behavioural Science, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia E-mail: j.mattingley{at}psych.unimelb.edu.au

Patients with right hemisphere (RH) lesions often display a spatial bias in attention towards the ipsilesional hemifield. The behavioural manifestations of this spatial bias are typically interpreted as reflecting increased or enhanced attention for stimuli within the ‘intact’ ipsilesional field, and impaired attentional functioning within the contralesional field. In the healthy brain, goal-driven and stimulus-driven attentional processes interact to determine which stimuli should be prioritized for selection. Although unilateral brain damage increases the relative attentional salience of stimuli within the ipsilesional field, it might also cause problems in filtering or attenuating task-irrelevant information. We examined whether goal-driven attention modulates the processing of ipsilesional and contralesional information in 6 patients with unilateral brain damage following RH stroke (5 male, 1 female; mean age 60.8 years) and a group of age and sex-matched controls. We used a flanker task in which participants made speeded judgements on a central target item (a coloured letter). On each trial the target was flanked by a coloured letter in the left and right hemifields. In separate blocks, participants were instructed to judge either the identity or the colour of the central target and to ignore the flankers. The flanker on one side could be congruent, incongruent or neutral with respect to the target, on either the letter or the colour dimension, whereas the flanker on the other side was always neutral on both dimensions. Healthy controls showed significant interference from incongruent flankers on either side. Crucially, however, this effect only occurred for the task-relevant dimension [F(2,10) = 24.60; P < 0.001]. For patients, however, both the task-relevant and task-irrelevant dimensions of ipsilesional flankers interfered with response times [task-relevant: F(2,10) = 7.50, P < 0.05; task-irrelevant: F(1,5) = 6.20, P < 0.05]. Conversely, contralesional flankers influenced response times only when the target and distractor were incongruent on the task-relevant dimension [F(2,10) = 4.85; P < 0.05]. Our findings demonstrate that following RH damage, goal-driven biases cannot constrain the processing of task-irrelevant features of ipsilesional stimuli. We speculate that a lateralized bias in spatial attention leads to unselective prioritization of all feature-based attributes of stimuli appearing within the ipsilesional hemifield, whether or not they are relevant to performance. Attentional selection for ipsilesional stimuli in disorders such as spatial neglect and extinction may not therefore be entirely normal, as previously assumed.

Key Words: spatial extinction; selectivity; goal-driven; stimulus-driven; feature-based selection

Abbreviations: RT = reaction time; RH = right hemisphere

Received June 14, 2005. Revised October 20, 2005. Accepted October 20, 2005.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Atten Percept PsychophysHome page
T. Ro, N. S. Singhal, B. G. Breitmeyer, and J. O. Garcia
Unconscious processing of color and form in metacontrast masking
Atten Percept Psychophys, January 1, 2009; 71(1): 95 - 103.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.