Cocchini G, Cubelli R, Della Sala S, Beschin N
Psychology Dept., University of Aberdeen, UK.
Cortex. 1999 Jun;35(3):285-313. doi: 10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70802-5.
A patient, AB, is reported who showed clear signs of neglect but no extinction (N+ E-). Several hypotheses proposed to account for this dissociation were put to the test. The postulated association between motor neglect and extinction did not hold good, nor did the possibility that the N+ E- dissociation may be traced back to the difference in test requirements and therefore observed only in patients with object-centred neglect. Likewise, manipulating the physical features of the stimuli (relative size, exposure time, presentation synchrony) did not elicit extinction. However, when the task demands were modified by asking the patient to perform a further spatial analysis of the stimuli, rather than simply detect them, extinction emerged. Since AB performed well on several neglect tasks requiring parallel processing, while failing all tasks calling for serial processing, the hypothesis is put forward that AB's N+ E- dissociation could be interpreted within the parallel/serial distinction framework.
报告了一位名为AB的患者，该患者表现出明显的疏忽迹象但无消退现象（N+ E-）。为解释这种分离现象而提出的几种假设经过了检验。运动疏忽与消退之间假定的关联并不成立，N+ E-分离可追溯到测试要求差异并因此仅在以客体为中心的疏忽患者中观察到的可能性也不成立。同样，操纵刺激的物理特征（相对大小、暴露时间、呈现同步性）也未引发消退现象。然而，当通过要求患者对刺激进行进一步的空间分析而非仅仅检测它们来改变任务要求时，消退现象出现了。由于AB在需要并行处理的多项疏忽任务中表现良好，而在所有需要串行处理的任务中均失败，因此提出假设，即AB的N+ E-分离可在并行/串行区分框架内得到解释。
