Biomedical subjects

Monika Harvey

Publications and source records attributed to Monika Harvey.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Does inversion abolish the left chimeric face processing advantage?

Experiments using chimeric stimuli have shown that the right hemisphere is more influential in processing facial information. Here, again, we found clear evidence that study participants used the information from the left side of the face to inform their gender decisions when chimeric male/female, female/male stimuli were presented. Most interestingly though, this effect was not only present for upright faces but also for inverted (flipped) faces (although the effect was significantly reduced). We propose that the chimeric bias effects found here argue against the idea that inversion destroys the right hemisphere superiority for faces. If this was indeed the case, flipping the chimeric faces should have resulted in a loss of the left face bias. This was not the case.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Perceptual and premotor neglect: is there an ideal task to categorise patients?

This review focuses on Edoardo Bisiach's particular input into the perceptual/premotor taxonomy within the neglect syndrome and assesses arguments and experimental designs that have been presented both for and against the dichotomy. Bisiach made most crucial contributions to this topic as well as increasing insights into the syndrome of hemispatial neglect more generally. Most importantly, he elucidated its relevance to visual neuropsychological and neuroscientific research.

Brain Damage, Chronic↗

PubMed2003

Eye-movement patterns do not mediate size distortion effects in hemispatial neglect: looking without seeing.

Over the last decade a range of studies have shown that some patients with hemispatial neglect subjectively underestimate the size of objects presented in their contralesional hemispace. Recently, it has been suggested that the effect is simply due to either hemianopia [Brain 124 (2001) 527], or the combination of neglect and hemianopia [Neurology 52 (1999) 1845]. In the current study we asked right hemisphere lesioned patients with and without neglect and hemianopia as well as healthy controls to judge either two horizontal or vertical lines presented simultaneously in right and left hemispace and monitored their eye movements. Three out of the six patients showed the predicted size distortion effect for horizontal lines. We found no evidence that the effect was mediated by eye movements. The two neglect patients who showed the strongest left side underestimation showed symmetrical (left, right) scanning of the lines both in terms of number of fixations and fixation time, yet they still failed to judge the relative size veridically. In addition, we did not find strong evidence for a link with hemianopia. We therefore propose that the effect reflects a computational/representational failure of processing for horizontal extent.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

The effects of visuomotor feedback training on the recovery of hemispatial neglect symptoms: assessment of a 2-week and follow-up intervention.

In patients suffering from left unilateral neglect, their right-biased attention to the phenomenal world can be ameliorated, short-term, by making motor responses to left-right extended objects (rods) that immediately reveal to them that their phenomenal world is in fact skewed. In this study the extent to which more intensive experiences of this type produced enduring and useful improvements in neglect, was assessed by first examining the effect of a 3-day experimenter-administered practice of rod lifting, then by examining the effects of a self-administered practice for a further 2-week period and a further 1 month post-training. Despite the fact that by the time the patients were able to undergo the intervention they had progressed to the chronic neglect stage, significant improvements of the intervention over the control group were found for a third of the tests given after the 3-day practice. Additionally, at the 1-month follow-up the intervention group again showed significantly better results in 46% of the direct neglect tests. As far as we are aware this is the first time that significant long-term improvements have been shown in a rehabilitation approach with neglect patients with a mean time of more than 12 months post-stroke and visuomotor feedback training can thus be seen as a most encouraging paradigm for future attempts.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Effects of visible and invisible cueing on line bisection and Landmark performance in hemispatial neglect.

A total of 12 patients with hemispatial neglect (and two control groups) were tested to examine the effects of lateralized cues on line bisection and Landmark judgements. The experiment was designed to investigate whether bisection and landmark biases induced by cueing are simply a result of a direct perceptual lengthening of the cued part of the line caused by the fact that the cue is visible, thus creating a composite 'line plus cue' or whether cueing indeed induces an attentional bias. Secondly, earlier work by Harvey et al. [Harvey M, Milner AD, Roberts RC. An investigation of hemispatial neglect using the landmark task, Brain and Cognition 1995; 27: 59-78] has shown that in neglect patients cues work by inducing orientational biases rather than via the alteration of subjective length perception. An attempt was made to replicate this finding and extend it to cues that are not physically present. The bisection data clearly showed that cues bias attention rather than work via a direct lengthening of the line: both visible and invisible cues biased bisection performance equally well. The Landmark data, however, revealed much less clear-cut results and we failed to repeat the earlier observation by Harvey et al. that cues induce orientational biases. Even when the neglect patients were categorised into premotor and perceptual categories a clear effect failed to emerge. It is hypothesised that the earlier reported effect may be linked to neglect severity rather than to perceptual type neglect.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Manual responses and saccades in chronic and recovered hemispatial neglect: a study using visual search.

Hemispatial neglect affects both the ability to respond to targets on the contralesional side of space and to programme saccades to such targets. In the current study, we looked in detail at saccade programming and manual reaction times (RTs) in a range of visual search tasks, in which task difficulty was systematically increased by changing the nature of the distractors. In condition 1, the target was presented with no distractors. In the other conditions, displays contained three distractors that were changed across conditions to manipulate similarity to the target and so task difficulty. We tested two neglect patients, one chronic, one recovered along with two RCVA control patients and 12 age-matched controls. Both neglect patients studied could successfully execute saccades into the neglected field when the target was presented alone. However, a dissociation emerged between the two patients when the target was presented with distractor items. Patient ERs first saccade to target performance in the three search conditions revealed clear effects of distractor type. In contrast for the recovered patient AF, the left/right difference was present for all search displays and appeared to be constant regardless of distractor type. This differential pattern of behaviour may reflect the different underlying neural causes of the neglect in these patients. In the current study, the measurement of saccades allowed the task to be fractionated, and thus, reveal the action of multiple mechanisms controlling saccades in search.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Categorisation of 'perceptual' and 'premotor' neglect patients across different tasks: is there strong evidence for a dichotomy?

The aim of the presented studies was to investigate whether classifications of neglect patients into perceptual (i.e. identifying a patient as suffering from mainly attentional/space representation deficits) and premotor (judging the main impairment to be related towards actions into contralesional space) categories is consistent across different line bisection assessment techniques that have, in the past, been designed to tease these potentially overlapping aspects of hemispatial neglect apart. Twelve patients with hemispatial neglect and three control groups were tested with the Overhead Task, adapted from Nico [Neuropsychologia 34 (1996) 471] in which patients were asked to bisect lines that were mirror reversed, the Pulley Device Technique, adapted from Bisiach et al. [Neurology 40 (1990) 1278] in which they had to perform a movement opposite to the direction of the transaction mark that bisected the line and the Landmark Test, adapted from Milner et al. [Neuropsychologia 30 (1992) 515] in which they had to manually point to the half of a centrally pre-bisected line that, to them, appeared shorter. The specific question was whether these three tasks would categorise the same set of patients in the same way?Most patients could be classified into either the premotor or perceptual category in each task, but no consistent categorisation emerged across the three techniques. Just 1 out of the 12 patients, was consistently classified across all three tasks. It seemed that despite the fact that all tasks essentially required a line bisection response, the perceptual and motor differences between the tasks were still great enough to result in inconsistent classifications. The Landmark Task classified the majority of patients into the perceptual neglect category, while the Overhead and Pulley Device Techniques tended to identify more patients as suffering from a premotor deficit (albeit not the same set of patients).

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of the Milner and Bisiach Landmark Tasks: can neglect patients be classified consistently?

The aim of the presented studies was to investigate whether classifications of neglect patients into perceptual (i.e. identifying a patient as suffering from mainly attentional/space representation deficits) and premotor (judging the main impairment to be related towards actions into contralesional space) categories are consistent across similar Landmark techniques that have, in the past, been designed to tease these potentially overlapping aspects of hemispatial neglect apart. Thirteen patients with hemispatial neglect were tested both with the Landmark Test, adapted from Milner et al. (1992; 1993) in which they had to manually point to the half of a centrally pre-bisected line that, to them, appeared shorter and the motor version of the Bisiach Landmark Test (Bisiach et al., 1998) in which, rather than just judging a centrally prebisected line, they had to judge asymmetrically bisected lines as well. The specific question was whether these two tasks, which are very similar, would categorise the same set of patients in the same way. Most patients could be classified into either the premotor or perceptual category in each task, but no consistent categorisation emerged across the two tests. Just three out of the thirteen patients were consistently classified across both tests. Despite the apparent similarity of the two tests the Milner Landmark Test proved to be much more sensitive to identifying even a slight perceptual bias and seems therefore the test of choice if identification of perceptual bias is the major interest.

Aged↗