Title of article :
Multiple Reference Frames in Neglect? An Investigation of the Object-Centred Frame and the Dissociation Between “Near” and “Far” From the Body by Use of a mirror
Author/Authors :
Laeng، نويسنده , , Bruno and Brennen، نويسنده , , Tim and Johannessen، نويسنده , , Kristin and Holmen، نويسنده , , Kirsti and Elvestad، نويسنده , , Rolf، نويسنده ,
Issue Information :
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2002
Pages :
18
From page :
511
To page :
528
Abstract :
In this single case study of a man (AE) who suffered a right hemisphere stroke we showed the co-existence of neglect within different spatial frames: (a) In left hemispace and (b) in ‘far’ versus ‘near’ space, both as defined from the patientʹs viewpoint, as well as (c) for the left side of an object (as defined from an object-centred view). In the experiment, AEʹs latencies to name the colour of two cubes, each located in one hemispace, were measured. In some conditions, the cubes were placed on a table but in other conditions each cube was held in one hand of an experimenter who could either face the patient or show the cubes while her back was turned towards him. One prediction was that AE would show longer latencies for cubes in left hemispace; however, if object-centred neglect also occurred, then latencies should be even longer for cubes held in the experimenterʹs left hand. In order to reveal the presence of neglect for ‘far’ versus ‘near’ space, the cubes could also be positioned either near to (i.e. reaching distance) or far from the patient (i.e., several metres out of reach), by moving the table or the experimenter. Finally, in some conditions, AE looked at the cubes into a mirror that was positioned far away from his body. Because external objects seen in a mirror can be ‘near’ the patientʹs body, the patient actually looked at a ‘far’ location (i.e. the surface of the mirror) to see an object that is ‘near’. The experiment confirmed the presence of all forms of neglect, since AE not only named the colour of a cube seen in his left hemispace more slowly than in right hemispace, but latencies increased for a cube held by the experimenter in her left hand and in left hemispace (both when the left hand was seen directly or as a mirror reflection). Finally, AEʹs performance was worse for ‘far’ than ‘near’ locations, when the cubes were physically located near his body (i.e., within “grasping” space) but seen in the mirror.
Keywords :
hemianopia , reference frames object-centred neglect , Peripersonal space , MIRROR , Spatial neglect
Journal title :
Cortex
Serial Year :
2002
Journal title :
Cortex
Record number :
2298974
Link To Document :
بازگشت