Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:35:18.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Directional collisions during a route-following task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

NICOLE A. THOMAS ,
DANE STUCKEL ,
CARL GUTWIN  and
LORIN J. ELIAS
NICOLE A. THOMAS*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
DANE STUCKEL
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
CARL GUTWIN
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
LORIN J. ELIAS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Nicole Thomas, Department of Psychology, 9 Campus Drive, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5A5. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Neurologically normal people tend to collide with objects on the right side more frequently than with objects located on the left side of space. This phenomenon could be attributable to pseudoneglect wherein individuals selectively attend to the left field. The current study investigated this effect using a virtual route-following task that was presented centrally, in the lower field, and in the upper field. Handedness was also examined. Fifty-two participants (four left handed) completed this task, and when presented in the lower field, more left-side collisions emerged. In the upper condition, this bias reversed direction to the expected rightward bias. In the central condition, there was no significant directional bias in collision behavior. An interaction between handedness and presentation condition indicated that left-handed participants experienced more right-side collisions in the central condition. Collectively, these results suggest that directional biases (i.e., left vs. right) in collision behavior are modulated by both location in the visual field (central, upper, or lower) and handedness. (JINS, 2009, 15, 225–230.)

Keywords

Perceptual asymmetryDistance judgmentUpper fieldLower fieldHandednessPseudoneglectDirectional collisions
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , March 2009 , pp. 225 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © INS 2009

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

Barrett, A.M., Crosson, B., Crucian, G.P., & Heilman, K.M. (2000). Horizontal line bisections in upper and lower body space. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 455–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowers, D. & Heilman, K.M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 491–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brain, W.R. (1941). Visual disorientation with special reference to lesions of the right cerebral hemisphere. Brain, 64, 244–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, L.J., Bryden, M.P., & Bulman-Fleming, M.B. (1998). Footedness is a better predictor than is handedness of emotional lateralization. Neuropsychologia, 36, 37–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossi, D., Lepore, M., Napolitano, A., & Trojano, L. (2001). On selective left neglect during walking in a child. Brain and Cognition, 47, 539–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huitema, R.B., Brouwer, W.H., Hof, A.L., Dekker, R., Mulder, T., & Postema, K. (2006). Walking trajectory in neglect patients. Gait & Posture, 23, 200–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyman, I.E. Jr & Loftus, E.F. (1998). Errors in autobiographical memory. Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 933–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jewell, G. & McCourt, M.E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krupp, D.B., Robinson, B.M., & Elias, L.J. (in press). Free-viewing perceptual asymmetry for distance judgments: Objects in right hemispace are closer than they appear. International Journal of Neuroscience.Google Scholar
Luh, K.E. (1995). Line bisection and perceptual asymmetries in normal individuals: What you see is not what you get. Neuropsychology, 9, 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingley, J.B., Berberovic, N., Corben, L., Slavin, M.J., Nicholls, M.E.R., & Bradshaw, J.L. (2004). The greyscales task: A perceptual measure of attentional bias following unilateral hemispheric damage. Neuropsychologia, 42, 387–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattingley, J.B., Pierson, J.M., Bradshaw, J.L., Phillips, J.G., & Bradshaw, J.A. (1993). To see or not to see: The effects of visible and invisible cues on line bisection judgements in unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia, 31, 1201–1215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCourt, M.E. & Garlinghouse, M. (2000). Asymmetries of visuospatial attention are modulated by viewing distance and visual field elevation: Pseudoneglect in peripersonal and extrapersonal space. Cortex, 36, 715–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCourt, M.E. & Jewell, G. (1999). Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 37, 843–855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCourt, M.E. & Olafson, C. (1997). Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: Psychophysical and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 35, 369–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholls, M.E.R., Bradshaw, J.L., & Mattingley, J.B. (1999). Free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for the judgement of brightness, numerosity and size. Neuropsychologia, 37, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholls, M.E.R., Loftus, A., Mayer, K., & Mattingley, J.B. (2007). Things that go bump in the right: The effect of unimanual activity on rightward collisions. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1122–1126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholls, M.E.R. & Roberts, G.R. (2002). Can free-viewing perceptual asymmetries be explained by scanning, pre-motor or attentional biases? Cortex, 38, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okubo, M. & Nicholls, M.E.R. (2006). A stimulus-dependent dissociation between the cerebral hemispheres under free-viewing conditions. Experimental Brain Research, 172, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, I.H., Tegnér, R., Goodrich, S.J., & Wilson, C. (1994). Walking trajectory and hand movements in unilateral left neglect: A vestibular hypothesis. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1495–1502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sampaio, E. & Chokron, S. (1992). Pseudoneglect and reversed pseudoneglect among left-handers and right-handers. Neuropsychologia, 30, 797–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarisbrick, D.J., Tweedy, J.R., & Kuslansky, G. (1987). Hand preference and performance effects on line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 25, 695–699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbull, O.H. & McGeorge, P. (1998). Lateral bumping: A normal-subject analog to the behaviour or patients with hemispatial neglect? Brain and Cognition, 37, 31–33.Google Scholar
Vallar, G. & Perani, D. (1986). The anatomy of unilateral neglect after right-hemisphere stroke lesions. A clinical/ct-scan correlation study in man. Neuropsychologia, 24, 609–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winograd, E., Peluso, J.P., & Glover, T.A. (1998). Individual differences in susceptibility to memory illusions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, S5–S27.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar