The Effects of Chronic Right Hemispheric Damage on the Allocation of Spatial Attention: Alterations of Accuracy and Reliability.

Right hemispheric damage (RHD) caused by strokes often induce attentional disorders such as hemispatial neglect. Most patients with neglect over time have a reduction in their ipsilesional spatial attentional bias. Despite this improvement in spatial bias, many patients remain disabled. The cause of this chronic disability is not fully known, but even in the absence of a directional spatial attentional bias, patients with RHD may have an impaired ability to accurately and precisely allocate their spatial attention. This inaccuracy and variable directional allocation of spatial attention may be revealed by repeated performance on a spatial attentional task, such as line bisection (LBT). Participants with strokes of their right versus left (LHD) hemisphere along with healthy controls (HC) performed 24 consecutive trials of 24 cm horizontal line bisections. A vector analysis of the magnitude and direction of deviations from midline, as well as their standard deviations (SD), were calculated. The results demonstrated no significant difference between the LHD, RHD and HC groups in overall spatial bias (mean bisection including magnitude and direction); however, the RHD group had a significantly larger variability of their spatial errors (SD), and made larger errors (from midline) than did the LHD and HC groups. There was a curvilinear relationship between the RHD participants' performance variability and their severity of their inaccuracy. Therefore, when compared to HC and LHD, the RHD subjects' performance on the LBT is more variable and inaccurate.

Ipsilateral neglect from a subcortical lesion: effects of spatial position, distractors, and repeated trials.

OBJECTIVES: This report describes a patient with right putaminal hemorrhage who showed ipsilateral (right-sided) neglect. BACKGROUND: Although lesions to subcortical regions may result in contralateral hemispatial neglect, ipsilateral neglect from putaminal damage has not been reported. It has been posited that ipsilateral neglect from unilateral frontal lesions may be induced by a contralateral attentional grasp. This patient's putaminal hemorrhage may have induced frontal dysfunction with an attentional grasp. METHODS: Because distracting stimuli, as well as close (vs. far) spatial position, may alter an attentional grasp and because fatigue may compromise the ability to disengage, we tested the patient with repeated trials of line bisection in peripersonal (close) and extrapersonal (far) space with left-sided, right-sided, and both-sided distractors. RESULTS: The patient's leftward bias increased with repeated trials, particularly with those in the close condition and with left-sided distractors. CONCLUSIONS: Right putaminal hemorrhage may produce ipsilateral neglect. Our patient's putaminal-white matter injury may have induced frontal dysfunction, and, with repeated trials, his right basal ganglia-frontal network may have fatigued. This fatigue, together with left-sided distractors in the close condition, seemed to increase his contralateral attentional grasp.

Right hemispatial ipsilesional neglect with chronic right hemisphere strokes.

BACKGROUND: Patients who present with spatial neglect after stroke often perform normally on tests for neglect after a few weeks. Whereas tests for neglect are often performed directly in front of a patient, in their actual environments many important stimuli may be present within their left or right hemispace. The presence and severity of neglect often depends on the hemisphere injured. It is possible, in chronic stroke, for spatial judgments to be influenced by an interaction of stroke laterality and the spatial location of stimuli. The objective of this study was to learn if unilateral hemispheric chronic strokes contribute to a spatial bias with laterally presented stimuli. METHOD: There were 70 participants, 62 with unilateral chronic strokes (>6 months post onset) including 35 with left hemisphere damage (LHD), 27 with right hemisphere damage (RHD), and 8 demographically similar people without history of stroke. Participants were asked to bisect 300 lines presented with distractors on the left, right, or both sides of the line, or no distractor, on a touch-screen monitor in right, center or left hemispace. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between the side of the hemispheric lesion and the side of the body where these lines were presented. Specifically, in right space, patients with RHD deviated leftward in comparison to the other groups. Furthermore, there was an interaction between group and distractor induced bias. All three groups approached the left distractor, and the patients with LHD also approached the right distractor. CONCLUSIONS: Although spatial neglect is more severe in contralesional than ipsilesional hemispace in the period immediately following a stroke, over time patients with RHD may develop ipsilesional neglect that is more severe in ipsilesional than contralesional space. The mechanism underlying this bias is not known and may be related to attempted compensation or the development of a contralateral attentional/intentional grasp.

The influence of stimulus proximity on judgments of spatial relationships in patients with chronic unilateral right or left hemisphere stroke.

OBJECTIVE: This was to learn how chronic right hemispheric damage (RHD) versus left hemispheric damage (LHD) may influence attentional biases in proximal and distal space. BACKGROUND: Prior research has suggested that the left hemisphere primarily attends to proximal space and the right hemisphere to distal space. The purpose of this study was to contrast line bisection performed in proximal versus distal space in patients with chronic LHD versus RHD. DESIGN/METHOD: Participants were 32 LHD and 26 RHD patients who sustained a stroke a mean of 3.4 years prior to testing, along with 9 healthy controls. Subjects attempted to bisect 30 lines in proximal space and 30 lines in distal space. RESULTS: Patients with both RHD and LHD had a greater contralesional bias in proximal than distal space (rightward bias for patients with LHD and leftward bias for patients with RHD). Compared to controls, patients with LHD were most different in proximal space, and patients with RHD were most different in distal space. CONCLUSIONS: Proximity appears to influence spatial judgments of patients with RHD and LHD in an opposing manner. Relatively, both patient groups bisect lines contralesionally in proximal space and ipsilesionally (relative to proximal) in distal space. Patients with RHD have the biggest difference between their proximal and distal judgments. The reason for these differences is unknown. However, these biases may be related to an attentional or action-intentional grasp or a learned compensation strategy, and proximity may increase the allocation of attention or intention and thereby enhance this grasp or use of this compensation strategy. Another contributing factor may be dominance of the left and right hemisphere for information presented in proximal and distal space, respectively.