Assessing viewer-centered and stimulus-centered spatial bias: The 3s spreadsheet test version 1

Chen, Peii; Caulfield, Meghan D.; Hartman, Ashley; O’Rourke, Jacqueline; Toglia, Joan

doi:10.1080/23279095.2016.1220382

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One hundred additional assessments, including 39 cancellation and bisection tests, 26 drawing tests, and 35 test batteries, were reported by participants. The Bells Test (Gauthier et al, 1989) was more popular than one test included in the survey questionthe 3s spreadsheet test (Chen et al, 2017) with 38 versus 8 responses respectively.…”

Section: Cognitive Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current clinical practice in the screening and diagnosis of spatial neglect post-stroke: Findings from a multidisciplinary international survey

Checketts

Mancuso

Fordell

et al. 2020

Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial neglect has profound implications for quality of life after stroke, yet we lack consensus for screening/diagnosing this heterogeneous syndrome. Our first step in a multi-stage research programme aimed to determine which neglect tests are used (within four categories: cognitive, functional, neurological and neuroimaging/neuromodulation), by which stroke clinicians, in which countries, and whether choice is by professional autonomy or institutional policy. 454 clinicians responded to an online survey: 12 professions (e.g., 39% were occupational therapists) from 33 countries (e.g., 38% from the UK). Multifactorial logistic regression suggested inter-professional differences but fewer differences between countries (Italy was an outlier). Cognitive tests were used by 82% (particularly by psychologists, cancellation and drawing were most popular); 80% used functional assessments (physiotherapists were most likely). 20% (mainly physicians, from Italy) used neuroimaging/ neuromodulation. Professionals largely reported clinical autonomy in their choices. Respondents agreed on the need for a combined approach to screening and further training. This study raises awareness of the translation gap between theory and practice. These findings lay an important foundation to ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Cognitive Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current clinical practice in the screening and diagnosis of spatial neglect post-stroke: Findings from a multidisciplinary international survey

Checketts

Mancuso

Fordell

et al. 2020

Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, allocentric deficits— often referred to as stimulus-centered deficits—are centered on the stimulus or object in view, and depend on the properties of the stimulus, including its orientation in space (Medina et al, 2009). Lesion studies suggest that reference-frame based spatial deficits arise from damage to distinct but related areas in the brain (Chen, Caulfield, Hartman, O'Rourke, & Toglia, 2016; Khurshid et al, 2012; Marsh & Hillis, 2008; Medina et al, 2009; Pouget & Driver, 2000). The right supramarginal gyrus (SMG; BA 40) and angular gyrus (BA 39) in the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) are often implicated in egocentric deficits (Hillis et al, 2005; Medina et al, 2009), whereas damage to the temporal areas such as the superior temporal gyrus (STG; BA 22), and the middle and inferior temporal gyri and their surrounding white matter (Grimsen, Hildebrandt, & Fahle, 2008; Hillis et al, 2005; Medina et al, 2009; Shah, Spaldo, Barrett, & Chen, 2013; Verdon, Schwartz, Lovblad, Hauert, & Vuilleumier, 2010) are frequently associated with allocentric deficits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the right superior temporal gyrus in stimulus-centered spatial processing

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although emerging neuropsychological evidence supports the involvement of temporal areas, and in particular the right superior temporal gyrus (STG), in allocentric neglect deficits, the role of STG in healthy spatial processing remains elusive. While several functional brain imaging studies have demonstrated involvement of the STG in tasks involving explicit stimulus-centered judgments, prior rTMS studies targeting the right STG did not find the expected neglect-like rightward bias in size judgments using the conventional landmark task. The objective of the current study was to investigate whether disruption of the right STG using inhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) could impact stimulus-centered, allocentric spatial processing in healthy individuals. A lateralized version of the landmark task was developed to accentuate the dissociation between viewer-centered and stimulus-centered reference frames. We predicted that inhibiting activity in the right STG would decrease accuracy because of induced rightward bias centered on the line stimulus irrespective of its viewer-centered or egocentric locations. Eleven healthy, right-handed adults underwent the lateralized landmark task. After viewing each stimulus, participants had to judge whether the line was bisected, or whether the left (left-long trials) or the right segment (right-long trials) of the line was longer. Participants repeated the task before (pre-rTMS) and after (post-rTMS) receiving 20 min of 1 Hz rTMS over the right STG, the right supramarginal gyrus (SMG), and the vertex (a control site) during three separate visits. Linear mixed models for binomial data were generated with either accuracy or judgment errors as dependent variables, to compare 1) performance across trial types (bisection, non-bisection), and 2) pre- vs. post-rTMS performance between the vertex and the STG and the vertex and the SMG. Line eccentricity (z = 4.31, p < 0.0001) and line bisection (z = 5.49, p < 0.0001) were significant predictors of accuracy. In the models comparing the effects of rTMS, a significant two-way interaction with STG (z = -3.09, p = 0.002) revealed a decrease in accuracy of 9.5% and an increase in errors of the right-long type by 10.7% on bisection trials, in both left and right viewer-centered locations. No significant changes in leftward errors were found. These findings suggested an induced stimulus-centered rightward bias in our participants after STG stimulation. Notably, accuracy or errors were not influenced by SMG stimulation compared to vertex. In line with our predictions, the findings provide compelling evidence for right STG's involvement in healthy stimulus-centered spatial processing.

show abstract

“…The second type of neglect is allocentric neglect (AN), which neglects information in the opposite side of the brain damage, regardless of the object’s location[ 9 , 10 ]. EN is also known as viewer-centered neglect, whereas AN is known as stimulus-centered neglect[ 11 ]. The research of Ota et al [ 9 ] led to the development of the apples test and the broken hearts test for better differentiation of the two types of neglect[ 12 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment tools for differential diagnosis of neglect: Focusing on egocentric neglect and allocentric neglect

Lee¹,

Lim²,

Jeong³

et al. 2022

WJCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND There are very few studies on the differential diagnosis between egocentric neglect (EN) and allocentric neglect (AN). AIM To investigate the overall trend of the previously developed assessment tools by conducting a descriptive review of the studies on assessment tools that can perform a differential diagnosis of EN and AN. METHODS The data were collected by using databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. The most commonly used search terms were “neglect”, “stroke”, “egocentric neglect”, and “allocentric neglect”. RESULTS A total of seven studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected and analyzed. We were able to confirm the research process, test method, and differential diagnosis criteria of the seven presented assessment tools from four studies on paper-based tests and three studies on computerized tests. The majority of the tests were carried out via the cancellation method using stimuli such as everyday objects or numbers. EN distinguished the left from right based on the test paper, while AN distinguished the left from right based on stimuli. In order to perform differential diagnosis, the difference in the number of left and right responses or non-responses was used based on the EN and AN criteria. CONCLUSION It was confirmed that all the seven assessment tools can effectively perform differential diagnosis of EN and AN. This study may provide important data that can be used in clinical practice for differential diagnosis and future intervention planning for neglect patients.

show abstract

Assessing viewer-centered and stimulus-centered spatial bias: The 3s spreadsheet test version 1

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Current clinical practice in the screening and diagnosis of spatial neglect post-stroke: Findings from a multidisciplinary international survey

Current clinical practice in the screening and diagnosis of spatial neglect post-stroke: Findings from a multidisciplinary international survey

The role of the right superior temporal gyrus in stimulus-centered spatial processing

Assessment tools for differential diagnosis of neglect: Focusing on egocentric neglect and allocentric neglect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About