1994
DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(94)90019-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can task specific perceptual bias be distinguished from unilateral neglect?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

13
113
4

Year Published

1997
1997
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 140 publications
(130 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
13
113
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Adolphs, Jansari, & Tranel, 2001;Ahern & Schwartz, 1985;Jansari, Rodway, & Goncalves, 2011). The leftward ECFT biases were not significantly affected by a left visual field bias in visuospatial attention, as measured by the Greyscales task (Mattingley et al, 1994;Nicholls, et al, 1999;Nicholls & Roberts, 2002). In addition, the large independent effect observed for the ECFT, and lack of significant correlation between the ECFT and Greyscales task, is inconsistent with the hypothesis that a general attentional asymmetry accounts for left hemiface biases.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Adolphs, Jansari, & Tranel, 2001;Ahern & Schwartz, 1985;Jansari, Rodway, & Goncalves, 2011). The leftward ECFT biases were not significantly affected by a left visual field bias in visuospatial attention, as measured by the Greyscales task (Mattingley et al, 1994;Nicholls, et al, 1999;Nicholls & Roberts, 2002). In addition, the large independent effect observed for the ECFT, and lack of significant correlation between the ECFT and Greyscales task, is inconsistent with the hypothesis that a general attentional asymmetry accounts for left hemiface biases.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…Consistent with the idea of the left of faces and the left of stimuli bias having a common origin, patients with attentional deficits in the left visual field demonstrated right biases in the ECFT and in various pseudoneglect tasks (Mattingley et al, 1994). However, Mattingley et al found no evidence of correlation between ECFT biases and scores on their measure of pseudoneglect (the Greyscales task; Mattingley et al, 1994;Nicholls, Bradshaw, & Mattingley, 1999;Nicholls & Roberts, 2002) within controls or patients. Given the lack of firm evidence regarding the influence of Method Participants 59 participants (27 male, 32 female) from Durham University initially took part in the present experiment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In line bisection, for example, people typically err by locating the midpoint about 2% to the left of true centre (Brodie & Pettigrew, 1996;Hausmann, Ergun, Yazgan, & Güntürkün, 2002), consistent with dominance of the right hemisphere for visuospatial attention (Fink et al, 2000;Heilman, Jeong, & Finney, 2004;Mattingley, Bradshaw, Nettleton, & Bradshaw, 1994). In contrast, our earlier research showed that musicians bisected lines to the right of centre, and were also more accurate overall than non-musicians (Patston, Corballis, Hogg, & Tippett, 2006).…”
Section: E-mail Address: Lucypatston@gmailcom (Llm Patston)mentioning
confidence: 72%
“…The latency of the N1 component has been suggested to reflect visual processing for attended stimuli (Luck, 1995), and previous research has shown the N1 latency to lengthen when attentional demands are increased (Callaway & Halliday, 1982;Schwent et al, 1976). The longer latency in the right hemisphere of non-musicians may thus be explained by the right hemisphere's dominant role in visuospatial attention (Fink et al, 2000;Heilman et al, 2004;Mattingley et al, 1994). In other words, a longer N1 latency in the right hemisphere of non-musicians may reflect an increased attentional capacity for LVF stimuli.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%