Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 (25)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Monaghan, P.
Right arrow Articles by Shillcock, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Monaghan, P.
Right arrow Articles by Shillcock, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Brain, Vol 121, Issue 5 907-921, Copyright © 1998 by Oxford University Press

REVIEWS

The cross-over effect in unilateral neglect. Modelling detailed data in the line-bisection task

P Monaghan and R Shillcock
Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, UK.

The line-bisection task is the standard assessment of unilateral visual neglect. It supplies one effect, the crossover effect, that challenges models of neglect: in left neglect, the rightward displacement of the midpoint of the line becomes a left displacement for small lines. We review the various attempts to account for the cross-over effect, before describing a computational model of performance in the line- bisection task that produces a cross-over effect quite naturally in its damaged state. The model trades on aspects of several current theories of neglect, including independent attentional processing in the two hemispheres, each of which possesses an attentional gradient in which the contralateral field is accentuated. We assume a small residual noise, along the same gradient, in the damaged hemisphere. When lesioned to simulate right hemisphere damage, the model produces line bisections similar to human performance, in terms of the relationship with line length, a variable cross-over point for the smaller lines, and an amelioration of performance with leftside, but not rightside cueing.
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
 BrainHome page
S. Savazzi, L. Posteraro, G. Veronesi, and F. Mancini
Rightward and leftward bisection biases in spatial neglect: two sides of the same coin?
Brain, August 1, 2007; 130(8): 2070 - 2084.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cogn. Neurosci.Home page
M. Mennemeier, C. A. Pierce, A. Chatterjee, B. Anderson, G. Jewell, R. Dowler, A. J. Woods, T. Glenn, and V. W. Mark
Biases in Attentional Orientation and Magnitude Estimation Explain Crossover: Neglect is a Disorder of Both
J. Cogn. Neurosci., August 1, 2005; 17(8): 1194 - 1211.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BrainHome page
F. Doricchi, P. Guariglia, F. Figliozzi, M. Silvetti, G. Bruno, and M. Gasparini
Causes of cross-over in unilateral neglect: between-group comparisons, within-patient dissociations and eye movements
Brain, June 1, 2005; 128(6): 1386 - 1406.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NeurologyHome page
F. Doricchi and P. Angelelli
Misrepresentation of horizontal space in left unilateral neglect: Role of hemianopia
Neurology, June 1, 1999; 52(9): 1845 - 1845.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [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.