Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Wiley, Journal of Neuropsychology, 1(7), p. 45-57, 2012

DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-6653.2012.02034.x

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Drawing perseveration in neglect: Effects of target density

Journal article published in 2012 by Lorenzo Pia, Raffaella Ricci ORCID, Patrizia Gindri, Giuseppe Vallar
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

In cancellation tasks, patients with unilateral spatial neglect typically fail to mark targets within the side of the sheet contralateral to the side of the lesion (contralesional). Moreover, they can show a perseverative behaviour, which consists in repeatedly cancelling stimuli, mainly in the side of the display ipsilateral to the side of the lesion (ipsilesional). We investigated in 13 right-brain-damaged patients with left spatial neglect and perseverative behaviour whether and how different densities of horizontal targets modulated omission and perseverative errors. We found that the density of targets modulated the patients' distribution of neglect (area of omission), but not its extent, as indexed by the percentage of omissions. Specifically, the area of omissions tightened when target density increased leftwards. On the other hand, target density did not affect the distribution of perseverative behaviour (area of perseveration), as well as its extent, as indexed by the percentage of perseverations. Correlation analyses showed that both the extent and the distribution of omissions were positively correlated to clinical measures of spatial neglect. Conversely, perseverations did not show such a correlation. These findings support the view that two different pathological mechanisms might be involved in left spatial neglect and in ipsilesional perseverative behaviour. © 2012 The British Psychological Society.