Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:33:00.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Focused and Sustained Spatial Attention on the Allocation of Spatial Attention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2018

Damon G. Lamb ,
Kristi T. Balavage ,
John B. Williamson ,
Lauren A. Knight  and
Kenneth M. Heilman
Damon G. Lamb
Affiliation:
Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory – Clinical Translational Research Program, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Center for Neuropsychological Studies, Department of Neurology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Kristi T. Balavage
Affiliation:
College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
John B. Williamson
Affiliation:
Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory – Clinical Translational Research Program, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Center for Neuropsychological Studies, Department of Neurology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Lauren A. Knight
Affiliation:
College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Kenneth M. Heilman*
Affiliation:
Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory – Clinical Translational Research Program, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Center for Neuropsychological Studies, Department of Neurology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Kenneth M. Heilman, Department of Neurology, University of Florida College of Medicine HSC PO Box 100236 Gainesville, FL 32610-0236. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of directed and sustained attention on the allocation of visuospatial attention. Healthy people often have left lateral and upward vertical spatial attentional biases. However, it is not known whether there will be an increase in bias toward the attended portion of the stimulus when volitional spatial attention is allocated to a portion of a stimulus, whether there are asymmetrical spatial alterations of these biases, and how sustained attention influences these biases. Methods: We assessed spatial bias in 36 healthy, right-handed participants using a variant of horizontal and vertical line bisections. Participants were asked to focus on one or the other end of vertical or horizontal lines or entire vertical or horizontal lines, and then to bisect the line either immediately or after a 20 second delay. Results: We found a significant main effect of attentional focus and an interaction between attentional focus and prolonged viewing with delayed bisection. Focusing on a certain portion of the line resulting in a significant deviation toward the attended portion and prolonged viewing of the line prior to bisection significantly enhanced the degree of deviation toward the attended portion. Conclusions: The enhanced bias with directed and sustained attention may be useful modifications of the line bisection test, particularly in clinical populations. Thus, future studies should determine whether prolonged viewing with delayed bisection and spatially focused attention reveals attentional biases in patients with hemispheric lesions who perform normally on the traditional line bisection test. (JINS, 2019, 25, 65–71)

Keywords

AttentionAttentional biasSpatial processingSensory neglectHabituationPseudoneglect
Type
Regular Research
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 65 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anton-Erxleben, K., Henrich, C., & Treue, S. (2007). Attention changes perceived size of moving visual patterns. Journal of Vision, 7(11), 51–59. doi:10.1167/7.11.5 Google Scholar
Bálint, R. (1909). Seelenlähmung des “Schauens,” optische Ataxie, räumliche Störung der Aufmerksamkeit. European Neurology, 25(1), 51–66. doi:10.1159/000210464 Google Scholar
Bonneh, Y.S., Donner, T.H., Cooperman, A., Heeger, D.J., & Sagi, D. (2014). Motion-induced blindness and Troxler fading: Common and different mechanisms. PLoS One, 9(3), e92894. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092894 Google Scholar
Bonneh, Y.S., Donner, T.H., Sagi, D., Fried, M., Cooperman, A., Heeger, D.J., Arieli, A. (2010). Motion-induced blindness and microsaccades: Cause and effect. Journal of Vision, 10(14), 22. doi:10.1167/10.14.22 Google Scholar
Bowers, D. & Heilman, K.M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18(4-5), 491–498.Google Scholar
Corbetta, M. & Shulman, G.L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3), 201–215. doi:10.1038/nrn755 Google Scholar
Falchook, A.D., Mody, M.D., Srivastava, A.B., Williamson, J.B., & Heilman, K.M. (2013). Vertical line quadrisection: “What” it represents and who gets the upper hand. Brain and Language, 127(2), 284–288. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.11.003 Google Scholar
Heber, I.A., Siebertz, S., Wolter, M., Kuhlen, T., & Fimm, B. (2010). Horizontal and vertical pseudoneglect in peri- and extrapersonal space. Brain and Cognition, 73(3), 160–166. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2010.04.006 Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M. & Valenstein, E. (1979). Mechanisms underlying hemispatial neglect. Annals of Neurology, 5(2), 166–170. doi:10.1002/ana.410050210 Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Valenstein, E., & Watson, R.T. (2012). Neglect and related disorders. In K.M. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology, 5th ed. (pp. 296–348). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M. & Van Den Abell, T. (1980). Right hemisphere dominance for attention: The mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries of inattention (neglect). Neurology, 30(3), 327–330.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Watson, R.T., Bower, D., & Valenstein, E. (1983). Right hemisphere dominance for attention. Revue Neurologique (Paris), 139(1), 15–17.Google Scholar
Ibos, G., Duhamel, J.R., & Ben Hamed, S. (2013). A functional hierarchy within the parietofrontal network in stimulus selection and attention control. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(19), 8359–8369. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4058-12.2013 Google Scholar
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: H. Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Jewell, G. & McCourt, M.E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38(1), 93–110.Google Scholar
Kanai, R., Muggleton, N.G., & Walsh, V. (2008). TMS over the intraparietal sulcus induces perceptual fading. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100(6), 3343–3350. doi:10.1152/jn.90885.2008 Google Scholar
Katsuki, F. & Constantinidis, C. (2014). Bottom-up and top-down attention: Different processes and overlapping neural systems. The Neuroscientist, 20(5), 509–521. doi:10.1177/1073858413514136 Google Scholar
Kerkhoff, G. (2001). Spatial hemineglect in humans. Progress in Neurobiology, 63(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Lee, B.H., Kim, M., Kang, S.J., Park, K.C., Kim, E.J., Adair, J.C., Na, D.L. (2004). Pseudoneglect in solid-line versus character-line bisection tasks: A test for attention dominance theory. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 17(3), 174–178.Google Scholar
Manning, L., Halligan, P.W., & Marshall, J.C. (1990). Individual variation in line bisection: A study of normal subjects with application to the interpretation of visual neglect. Neuropsychologia, 28(7), 647–655.Google Scholar
Marsh, E.B. & Hillis, A.E. (2008). Dissociation between egocentric and allocentric visuospatial and tactile neglect in acute stroke. Cortex, 44(9), 1215–1220. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2006.02.002 Google Scholar
McCourt, M.E. & Jewell, G. (1999). Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 37(7), 843–855.Google Scholar
McCourt, M.E. & Olafson, C. (1997). Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: Psychophysical and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 35(3), 369–380.Google Scholar
McIntosh, R.D., Ietswaart, M., & Milner, A.D. (2017). Weight and see: Line bisection in neglect reliably measures the allocation of attention, but not the perception of length. Neuropsychologia, 106, 146–158. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.09.014 Google Scholar
Medina, J., Kannan, V., Pawlak, M.A., Kleinman, J.T., Newhart, M., Davis, C., Hillis, A.E. (2009). Neural substrates of visuospatial processing in distinct reference frames: Evidence from unilateral spatial neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(11), 2073–2084. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.21160 Google Scholar
Mennemeier, M.S., Chatterjee, A., Watson, R.T., Wertman, E., Carter, L.P., & Heilman, K.M. (1994). Contributions of the parietal and frontal lobes to sustained attention and habituation. Neuropsychologia, 32(6), 703–716.Google Scholar
Nicholls, M.E., Beckman, E., & Churches, O. (2016). An investigation of the mechanisms underlying the effects of viewing distance and stimulus length on attentional asymmetries during line bisection. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(5), 1351–1362. doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1122-7 Google Scholar
Poletti, M. & Rucci, M. (2010). Eye movements under various conditions of image fading. Journal of Vision, 10(3), 6. doi:10.1167/10.3.6 Google Scholar
Rapcsak, S.Z., Cimino, C.R., & Heilman, K.M. (1988). Altitudinal neglect. Neurology, 38(2), 277–281.Google Scholar
Scarisbrick, D.J., Tweedy, J.R., & Kuslansky, G. (1987). Hand preference and performance effects on line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 25(4), 695–699.Google Scholar
Shelton, P.A., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K.M. (1990). Peripersonal and vertical neglect. Brain, 113(Pt 1), 191–205.Google Scholar
Suavansri, K., Falchook, A.D., Williamson, J.B., & Heilman, K.M. (2012). Right up there: Hemispatial and hand asymmetries of altitudinal pseudoneglect. Brain and Cognition, 79(3), 216–220. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.03.003 Google Scholar
Thomas, N.A., Aniulis, E., & Nicholls, M.E. (2016). The influence of baseline directional differences in pseudoneglect on distractibility. Cortex, 77, 69–83. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.01.013 Google Scholar
Troxler, D.I.P.V. (1804). Über das Verschwinden gegebener Gegenstände innerhalb unseres Gesichtskreises. Ophthalmologische bibliothek, 2(2), 1–53.Google Scholar
Vecera, S.P. & Rizzo, M. (2003). Spatial attention: Normal processes and their breakdown. Neurologic Clinics, 21(3), 575–607.Google Scholar
Zago, L., Petit, L., Jobard, G., Hay, J., Mazoyer, B., Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Mellet, E. (2017). Pseudoneglect in line bisection judgement is associated with a modulation of right hemispheric spatial attention dominance in right-handers. Neuropsychologia, 94, 75–83. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.11.024 Google Scholar