Verbal visual extinction in right/left hemisphere lesion patients and the problem of lexical access

Siéroff, Éric; François, Michel

doi:10.1016/0028-3932(87)90095-9

Cited by 26 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Extinction decreases when LVF and RVF words together form a single compound word [19], which perhaps requires less attention to be identified, or is increased when LVF and RVF words are identical [44]. In the latter study, RVF words may have been fully identified, in the sense that both their location and semantic codes were activated, whereas only the semantic code was activated in LVF words because of the attentional deficit.…”

Section: Tachistoscopic Presentation: Time and Locationmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…ND is more severe when words are tachistoscopically presented in the LVF than RVF [19], so the deficit is located at the level of a retino-centred representation. However, neglect errors can also occur on the left side of words located in the RVF [2,17], so the deficit can occur at the level of a stimulus-centred representation.…”

Section: Representation Level Of the Deficitmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Finally, the superiority of words in ND has been described with compound words such as cookbook [19,20] and with irreversible binomial forms such as ''dead or alive'' [21]. The nature of the nonwords, specifically the phonological plausibility or the lexical resemblance of the letter string (pseudowords such as ''blimarel'' vs illegal non-words such as ''lbmiaerl''), has been diversely evaluated and more studies are needed.…”

Section: Superiority Of Words Over Non-wordsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In patients with right posterior lesions, the asymmetry in favour of the RVF is amplified because the rightward bias of attention is increased. Sometimes the presentation of 2 words, one in each visual field, is necessary to elicit this abnormal bias: patients identify a word in the LVF when presented alone but not when simultaneously presented with a word in the RVF, a phenomenon known as visual verbal extinction [19]. Because extinction is found even when the RVF stimulus is a distractor that the patient must ignore, the deficit is better explained by an attentional bias than a report bias [40].…”

Section: Tachistoscopic Presentation: Time and Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, ND without USN may be caused by a lesion on the tracks relating right-hemisphere regions playing a role in attentional orienting and regions necessary to identify visual words (i.e., the visual word form area [VWFA] located in the posterior part of the left fusiform region) [30]. ND usually occurs after temporo-parietal lesions or in lesions in the posterior part of basal ganglia and insula [19,25], so determining whether the lesion affects callosal fibres is of interest. Third, the lesion may spare the middle superior longitudinal fasciculus shown to play a role in line bisection bias and spatial orienting [31].…”

Section: Neglect Dyslexia and Unilateral Spatial Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Acquired spatial dyslexia

Siéroff¹

2017

Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acquired spatial dyslexia is a reading disorder frequently occurring after left or right posterior brain lesions. This article describes several types of spatial dyslexia with an attentional approach. After right posterior lesions, patients show left neglect dyslexia with errors on the left side of text, words, and non-words. The deficit is frequently associated with left unilateral spatial neglect. Severe left neglect dyslexia can be detected with unlimited exposure duration of words or non-words. Minor neglect dyslexia is detected with brief presentation of bilateral words, one in the left and one in the right visual field (phenomenon of contralesional extinction). Neglect dyslexia can be explained as a difficulty in orienting attention to the left side of verbal stimuli. With left posterior lesions, spatial dyslexia is also frequent but multiform. Right neglect dyslexia is frequent, but right unilateral spatial neglect is rare. Attentional dyslexia represents difficulty in selecting a stimulus, letter or word among other similar stimuli; it is a deficit of attentional selection, and the left hemisphere plays a crucial role in selection. Two other types of spatial dyslexia can be found after left posterior lesions: paradoxical ipsilesional extinction and stimulus-centred neglect dyslexia. Disconnections between left or right parietal attentional areas and the left temporal visual word form area could explain these deficits. Overall, a model of attention dissociating modulation, selection control, and selection positioning can help in understanding these reading disorders.

show abstract

Section: Tachistoscopic Presentation: Time and Locationmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Representation Level Of the Deficitmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Superiority Of Words Over Non-wordsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Tachistoscopic Presentation: Time and Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Neglect Dyslexia and Unilateral Spatial Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Acquired spatial dyslexia

Siéroff¹

2017

Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Proper Names and Noun-to-Determiner Movement in Aphasia: A Case Study

Semenza

Granà

Cocolo

et al. 2002

Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neglect dyslexia: whole-word and within-word errors with parafoveal and foveal viewing

Rich,

Palmer

2023

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with left-sided neglect dyslexia often omit whole words positioned on the left, termed whole-word errors, or commit errors on the left-sided letters of words, termed unilateral paralexias. In addition, the errors have been shown to be exacerbated by simultaneously presented distractors, which has been interpreted as a failure of selective attention. In two experiments, we examined the dependency of these error types on parafoveal versus foveal viewing. The first experiment used a paradigm with parafoveal targets and distractors; the second a paradigm with foveal targets and parafoveal distractors. This enabled a separate evaluation of the influences of stimulus position within an egocentric frame, a two-word allocentric frame, and a within-word allocentric frame. First, regarding whole-word errors, we found the expected spatial and distractor effects with parafoveal targets and distractors. With foveal targets and parafoveal distractors, however, the spatial effect was effectively eliminated. Surprisingly, intrusions from the distractor word were common in distractor conditions. This is consistent with an egocentric account and not a two-word allocentric account. Second, we found that unilateral paralexias remained largely consistent regardless of spatial position or the presence of a distractor. Thus, there is a contrast in spatial and distractor effects between whole-word errors and unilateral paralexias. These results are consistent with three distinct deficits: an egocentric deficit across space resulting in whole-word errors, a failure of selective attention that results in whole-word intrusion errors, and a within-word allocentric deficit resulting in unilateral paralexias.

show abstract

Verbal visual extinction in right/left hemisphere lesion patients and the problem of lexical access

Cited by 26 publications

References 20 publications

Acquired spatial dyslexia

Acquired spatial dyslexia

Proper Names and Noun-to-Determiner Movement in Aphasia: A Case Study

Neglect dyslexia: whole-word and within-word errors with parafoveal and foveal viewing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About