Semantic processing in the neglected visual field: Evidence from a lexical decision task

McGlinchey-Berroth, Regina; Milberg, William; Verfaellie, Mieke; Alexander, Michael P.; Kilduff, Patrick

doi:10.1080/02643299308253457

Cited by 178 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current study, however, demonstrates a dissociation between those individuals for whom preattentive featural information is processed and those individuals who may behaviorally present very similarly but for whom preattentive featural information is likely not processed. A similar dissociation was observed by McGlinchey-Berroth et al (1993), who found that, unlike patients with only hemispatial neglect, a hemianopic patient did not show implicit picture priming. It is clear that these two groups are differentially sensitive to visual information and should not be combined in group studies.…”

Section: Preattentive Searchsupporting

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preattentive and attentive visual search in individuals with hemispatial neglect.

Esterman¹

2000

Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preattentive and attentive visual processing was examined in patients with hemispatial neglect, hemispatial neglect with hemianopia, and control participants. In the preattentive search task, targets possessed a unique feature that was not shared by distractors. In the attentive search task, targets lacked a feature that was present in the distractors. Preattentive search was normal in 3 neglect patients with cortical lesions but not in 2 neglect patients with hemianopia. A 4th neglect patient without hemianopia with a subcortical infarct abnormally used serial search mechanisms in the preattentive task. Neglect patients were characteristically impaired in the contralesional field in the attentive search task. This study demonstrates preserved explicit detection of visual features in cases of hemispatial neglect.

show abstract

Section: Preattentive Searchsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Electronic mail may be sent to rmcglin@bu.edu. McGlinchey-Berroth, Milberg, Verfaellie, Alexander, & Kilduff, 1993). How can one reconcile these paradoxical findings?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preattentive and attentive visual search in individuals with hemispatial neglect.

Esterman¹

2000

Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although unable to report the presence of stimuli on the neglected side, performance can be influenced by figure/ground organization (Driver, Baylis, & Rafal, 1992), as well as illusory contours and perceptual illusions that are defined by stimulus properties on the neglected side of objects (Ro & Rafal, 1996; Vuilluemeir & Landis, 1998; Mattingley, Davis, & Driver, 1997). Even semantic information of neglected items appears to be registered without conscious awareness (McGlinchey-Berroth, Milberg, Verfaellie, Alexander, & Kildufff, 1993).Findings such as these demonstrate that basic perceptual information that is assumed to contribute to the explicit perception of objects and object parts is encoded even when dense neglect is present. Demonstrations that higher order information is encoded raise questions such as how the underlying information might be accessed or what information is most likely to bring neglected information to awareness?…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Grouping Influences in Unilateral Visual Neglect

Robertson

Eglin²,

Knight³

2003

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of grouping on unilateral neglect were investigated in 8 neurological patients with right hemisphere damage. It is well documented that arranging items to form a group spanning the midline decreases the magnitude of neglect. In the present study we examined how clusters of groups within the left or right visual field affect neglect and whether isolated groups within the neglected field deflect attention from right-sided displays. We orthogonally varied the strength of grouping on the right and left sides of a display and measured the time to find a predesignated target in one of those groups. Groups on the neglected left side did not affect right-sided target detection any more than an empty left page. However, strength of grouping did affect left sided target detection. These findings are discussed as they relate to attention and preattention in unilateral visual neglect.Patients with unilateral visual neglect -most often due to right hemisphere damage -do not scan or direct attention to the leftmost elements in a visual scene or stimulus display. Different types of neglect have been documented (see Heilman, Watson, & Valenstein, 1985;Mesulam, 1985) but all have in common a lack of overt orienting towards the contralesional side of space. This deficit poses many problems in every day life and can be life threatening if certain items, such as a moving car, are not detected.Despite the dense lack of awareness of the contralesional side of space, items that appear on that side seem to be registered by the visual system. There have been many reports of intact processing of neglected information without awareness (see Driver & Vuilleumier, 2001). Although unable to report the presence of stimuli on the neglected side, performance can be influenced by figure/ground organization (Driver, Baylis, & Rafal, 1992), as well as illusory contours and perceptual illusions that are defined by stimulus properties on the neglected side of objects (Ro & Rafal, 1996; Vuilluemeir & Landis, 1998; Mattingley, Davis, & Driver, 1997). Even semantic information of neglected items appears to be registered without conscious awareness (McGlinchey-Berroth, Milberg, Verfaellie, Alexander, & Kildufff, 1993).Findings such as these demonstrate that basic perceptual information that is assumed to contribute to the explicit perception of objects and object parts is encoded even when dense neglect is present. Demonstrations that higher order information is encoded raise questions such as how the underlying information might be accessed or what information is most likely to bring neglected information to awareness? One factor that is effective in reducing the magnitude of neglect is grouping (e.g., Gilchrist, Humphreys, & Riddoch, 1996 One example relevant to the methods used in the present studies was reported by Grabowecky, Robertson, and Treisman (1993) who varied grouping in a visual search task and reported that the "center" of a group of items could move the vertical meridian of neglect rightward or leftward depending on the ...

show abstract

“…Driver and Vuilleumier (2001) reviewed numerous studies of patients demonstrating that neglected or extinguished stimuli may be processed not only at a perceptual but also at a semantic level (Audet, Bub and Lecours, 1991;Baylis et al, 1993;McGlinchey-Berroth et al, 1993;Rees et al, 2001). Additionally, several fMRI studies of patients with neglect have demonstrated that even extinguished faces may be associated with activation in the "fusiform face area" (Rees et al, 1997;Vuilleumier et al, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultanagnosia: Effects of semantic category and repetition blindness

Coslett

Lie

2008

Neuropsychologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When confronted with two identical stimuli in a very brief period of time subjects often fail to report the second stimulus, a phenomenon termed "repetition blindness". The "type-token" account attributes the phenomenon to a failure to individuate the exemplars. We report a subject, KE, who developed simultanagnosia (the inability to see more than one item in an array) as a consequence of bilateral parietal lobe infarctions. With presentation of two words, pictures or letters for an unlimited time, KE typically reported both stimuli on less than half of trials. Performance was significantly influenced by the semantic relationship between items in the array. He reported both items significantly more frequently if they were semantically related; in contrast, when presented either identical or visually different depictions of the same item, he reported both items on only 2-4% of trials. Performance was not influenced by the visual similarity between the stimuli; he reported visually dissimilar objects less frequently than visually similar but different objects. We suggest that KE's bilateral parietal lesions prevent the binding of preserved object representations to a representation computed by the dorsal visual system. More generally, these data are consistent with the claim that the posterior parietal cortex is crucial for individuating a stimulus by computing its unique spatio-temporal characteristics.

show abstract

Semantic processing in the neglected visual field: Evidence from a lexical decision task

Cited by 178 publications

References 34 publications

Preattentive and attentive visual search in individuals with hemispatial neglect.

Preattentive and attentive visual search in individuals with hemispatial neglect.

Grouping Influences in Unilateral Visual Neglect

Simultanagnosia: Effects of semantic category and repetition blindness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About