Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:40:30.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Length perception and production of normal subjects in proximal versus distal peripersonal space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

JAY C. KWON ,
BYUNG H. LEE ,
JUNG MIN JI ,
YONG JEONG ,
BONG JIK KIM ,
KENNETH M. HEILMAN  and
DUK L. NA
JAY C. KWON
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Changwon Fatima Hospital, Changwon, Korea
BYUNG H. LEE
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
JUNG MIN JI
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Changwon Fatima Hospital, Changwon, Korea
YONG JEONG
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
BONG JIK KIM
Affiliation:
College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
KENNETH M. HEILMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, University of Florida and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida.
DUK L. NA
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigated whether the perception or production of a given line length in normal subjects varies according to where in peripersonal space the line is perceived or produced. We also investigated the influence of the direction of movement used to make the line. In Experiment 1, blindfolded normal subjects were asked to estimate distances while the examiner moved the subject's hand in proximal (medial) or distal (lateral) space, moving centripetally or centrifugally. The subjects showed a spatial effect, perceiving the same length as shorter in proximal space than distal space. This result could be related to either a proximal spatial attentional bias or an anisometric representation of spatial distances. In Experiment 2, we attempted to dissociate these hypotheses by studying blindfolded normal subjects, who were requested to produce horizontal lines of a given length (100 or 200 mm) in proximal versus distal peripersonal space using centripetal or centrifugal movements. Centrifugal movements in proximal space were the longest; centrifugal movements in distal space were the shortest; in between were the proximal centripetal and distal centripetal movements which did not differ from each other. These results suggest that in peripersonal space the perception of length in normal subjects is most consistent with anisometric mental representation where the size of mental representations of length units decreases as a function of the distance from the subject's midsagittal plane. Length production, however, may depend on an interaction of the anisometric mental representation and the premotor/intentional factors. (JINS, 2004, 10, 913–919.)

Keywords

Length perceptionLength productionProximal spaceDistal spaceCentrifugal movementCentripetal movement
Type
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 10 , Issue 6 , October 2004 , pp. 913 - 919
Copyright
© 2004 The International Neuropsychological Society

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

Baek, M.J., Lee, B.H., Kwon, J.C., Park, J.M., Kang, S.J., Chin, J., Heilman, K.M., & Na, D.L. (2002). Influence of final research direction on tactile line bisection in normal subjects. Neurology, 58, 1833–1838Google Scholar
Barrett, A.M., Crosson, J.B., Crucian, G.P., & Heilman, K.M. (2002). Far bias on the radial line bisection task: Measuring perceptual-attentional and motor-intentional bias in normal subjects. Cortex, 38, 769–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beschin, N., Cazzani, M., Cubelli, R., Della Sala, S., & Spinazzola, L. (1996). Ignoring left and far: An investigation of tactile neglect. Neuropsychologia, 34, 41–49.Google Scholar
Bisiach, E., Neppi-Modona, M., Genero, R., & Pepi, R. (1999). Anisometry of space representation in unilateral neglect: Empirical test of a former hypothesis. Consciousness and cognition, 8, 577–584.Google Scholar
Bowers, D. & Heilman, K.M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 491–498.Google Scholar
Brodie, E.E. & Pettigrew, L.E.L. (1996). Is left always right? Directional deviation in visual line bisection as a function of hand and initial scanning direction. Neuropsychologia, 34, 467–470.Google Scholar
Chewning, J., Adair, J.C., Heilman, E.B., & Heilman, K.M. (1998). Attentional bias in normal subjects performing visual and tactile radial line bisections. Neuropsychologia, 36, 1097–1101.Google Scholar
Chokron, S. & Imbert, M. (1993). Influence of reading habits on line bisection. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 1, 219–222.Google Scholar
Halligan, P.W. & Marshall, J.C. (1993). The bisection of horizontal and radial lines: A case study of normal controls and ten patients with left visuospatial neglect. International Journal of Neuroscience, 70, 149–167.Google Scholar
Harvey, M., Milner, A.D., & Roberts, R.C. (1995). An investigation of hemispatial neglect using the landmark task. Brain and Cognition, 27, 59–78.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Watson, R.T., & Valenstein, E. (1993). Neglect and related disorders. In K.M. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (3rd ed., pp. 279–336). New York: Oxford University Press.
Jewell, G. & McCourt, M.E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93–110.Google Scholar
Kashmere, J.L. & Kirk, A. (1997). The complex interaction of normal biases in line bisection. Neurology, 49, 887–889.Google Scholar
MacLeod, M.S. & Turnbull, O.H. (1999). Motor and perceptual factors in pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 37, 707–713.Google Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Wertman, E., & Heilman, K.M. (1992). Neglect of near peripersonal space: Evidence for multidirectional attentional systems in humans. Brain, 115, 37–50.Google Scholar
Milner, A.D., Brechmann, M., & Pagliarini, L. (1992). To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgments in normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 30, 515–526.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.Google Scholar
Shelton, P.A., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K.M. (1990). Peripersonal and vertical neglect. Brain, 113, 191–205.Google Scholar