Sacchetti Daniela L, Goedert Kelly M, Foundas Anne L, Barrett A M
Kessler Foundation.
Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University.
Neuropsychology. 2015 Mar;29(2):183-90. doi: 10.1037/neu0000122. Epub 2014 Sep 1.
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 29(2) of Neuropsychology (see record 2014-42242-001). The funding source information was missing from the author note, and A. M. Barrett's institutional affiliation was incorrect. The funding source information and Barrett's correct institutional affiliation are provided in the erratum.]
The sparse existing research on ipsilesional neglect supports an association of this disorder with damage to the right frontal and subcortical brain networks. It is believed that dysfunction in these networks may result in primarily "aiming" motor-intentional spatial errors. The purpose of this study was to confirm whether frontal-subcortical circuits are indeed commonly affected in ipsilesional neglect and to determine the relative presence of "aiming" motor-intentional versus "where" perceptual-attentional spatial errors in these individuals.
We identified 12 participants with ipsilesional neglect based on a computerized line bisection task and used the line bisection data to quantify participants' perceptual-attentional and motor-intentional errors. We were able to discriminate between these 2 biases using the algebraic solutions for 2 separate equations, one for "aiming" and one for "where" biases. Lesion mapping was conducted for all participants using MRIcron software; lesion checklist and overlap analysis were created from these images.
A greater percentage of participants with ipsilesional neglect had frontal/subcortical damage (83%) compared with the expected percentage (27%) observed in published patient samples with contralesional neglect. We observed the greatest area of lesion overlap in frontal lobe white matter pathways. Nevertheless, participants with ipsilesional neglect made primarily "where" rather than "aiming" spatial errors.
Our data confirm previous research suggesting that ipsilesional neglect may result from lesions to the right frontal-subcortical networks. Furthermore, in our group, ipsilesional neglect was also strongly associated with primarily "where" perceptual-attentional bias, and less so with "aiming" motor-intentional spatial bias.
[更正通知:本文的勘误已发表在《神经心理学》第29卷第2期(见记录2014-42242-001)。作者注释中缺少资金来源信息,且A.M.巴雷特的机构隶属关系有误。勘误中提供了资金来源信息和巴雷特正确的机构隶属关系。]
关于同侧偏侧忽视的现有研究较少,支持这种障碍与右侧额叶和皮质下脑网络损伤有关。据信,这些网络功能障碍可能主要导致“瞄准”运动意向性空间误差。本研究的目的是确认额叶 - 皮质下回路在同侧偏侧忽视中是否确实普遍受到影响,并确定这些个体中“瞄准”运动意向性与“哪里”感知 - 注意力空间误差的相对存在情况。
我们根据计算机化直线二等分任务确定了12名同侧偏侧忽视参与者,并使用直线二等分数据量化参与者的感知 - 注意力和运动意向性误差。我们能够使用两个独立方程的代数解来区分这两种偏差,一个用于“瞄准”偏差,一个用于“哪里”偏差。使用MRIcron软件对所有参与者进行病变映射;从这些图像中创建病变清单和重叠分析。
与在对侧偏侧忽视的已发表患者样本中观察到的预期百分比(27%)相比,同侧偏侧忽视参与者中额叶/皮质下损伤的百分比更高(83%)。我们在额叶白质通路中观察到最大的病变重叠区域。然而,同侧偏侧忽视参与者主要出现“哪里”而非“瞄准”空间误差。
我们的数据证实了先前的研究,表明同侧偏侧忽视可能由右侧额叶 - 皮质下网络的损伤引起。此外,在我们的研究组中,同侧偏侧忽视也与主要的“哪里”感知 - 注意力偏差密切相关,而与“瞄准”运动意向性空间偏差的相关性较小。