Simulating unilateral neglect in normals using prism adaptation: implications for theory
Introduction
Unilateral neglect is a well-established neuropsychological disorder that comprises a family of lateralised symptoms that commonly follow unilateral (right) brain damage [15]. Despite the recent proliferation of dissociations, two common features have been used to unify this heterogeneous condition. First, much of the clinical evidence supports a hemispheric asymmetry for neuropsychological processes mediating spatial cognition; neglect after right hemisphere lesions is more frequent, long lasting, and severe than after equivalent lesions of the left hemisphere and typically produce rightward deviation and hence “left neglect” on a variety of simple diagnostic measures [12], [58].
The second feature concerns the level of neuropsychological processing where the disorder takes place. The standard definition of neglect since the 1970s is unambiguous in maintaining that the disorder cannot be “attributed to either sensori or motor defects” [15]. From a neuropsychological perspective, it is now generally accepted that neglect is a heterogeneous disorder whose different symptoms can be explained in terms of damage to (at least) one of three different cognitive mechanisms mediating attention (e.g. [14]), intention [59] and/or space representation [3]. Recently, however, evidence that various symptoms of visual neglect can be improved following short adaptation periods to a 10° right prismatic shift of the visual field [50], [51] has begun to challenge the traditional distinction in the standard clinical definition between low level sensori–motor deficits and those assumed to involve higher level/cognitive systems.
Prism adaptation consists of active pointing to visual targets while the subject wears prismatic goggles that deviate the visual field unilaterally. The prisms produce a visuo-proprioceptive conflict which initially (a) induces a pointing error in the same direction as the optical deviation (i.e. right-shifting prisms initially induce a rightward pointing error). However, after several pointing trials, subjects (b) adapt their pointing responses and pointing errors gradually disappear. The after-effects of such adaptation, (c) in normal subjects, are well established as quantitative measures of the adaptation (see [60]) and have been traditionally described as recruiting low level sensori–motor systems (e.g. [43]). These after-effects compensate for the visuo-proprioceptive discrepancy introduced by the prisms. These sensori–motor after-effects typically last for a brief time period [23] of usually no more than the exposure period since the normal system de-adapts or re-adapts just as rapidly when movements are permitted under normal vision. Although varying the cognitive load on these tasks has been shown to interfere with prism [41], [42] or visuomotor [18] adaptation, the converse (producing significant after-effects on cognitive tasks following adaptation in patients or healthy individuals) had not been documented until recently [50].
The perceived midline (evaluated by manual demonstration) of neglect patients can be shifted to the left following adaptation to prisms [50]. In addition, several standard neuropsychological tests showed beneficial and reliable effects including line bisection, copying a simple drawing, drawing of a daisy from memory and reading. In some patients, this corrective effect was found to last up to several days [32], [40], [51] (review: [49]). Subsequently, it was shown that prism adaptation could produce a similar beneficial effect on tasks that depended on effectors other than the exposed hand (body posture: [57]) or solely on higher levels of spatial representation (mental representation: [47]). Hence, in contrast to the standard definition of neglect, simple prism adaptation (involving low level sensori–motor processes) modulated visuospatial neglect performance in a directionally specific way on many of the established clinical tests thought to assess the effects of damage to high level spatial cognition. Collectively, these findings question the assumption that only higher level cognitive disorders (e.g. attention, intention and/or representational) are involved in producing the characteristic clinical picture of unilateral neglect. Moreover, they suggest that left neglect after right hemisphere damage may result from an interaction of sensori–motor changes and higher cognitive processes [51]. There are many varied lateralised systems in the brain that can interact in the detection and exploration of “ambient changes in the environment” [22]. Consequently, it is possible that some of the spatial features of unilateral neglect following right damage might be determined by intrinsic low level neural organisational features specific to the right hemisphere. To establish this hypothesis it is necessary to show that post-pathology activation by prism adaptation can modulate neglect performance (1) beneficially, (2) for a temporally extended period of time and (3) more importantly demonstrate qualitatively similar transient disturbance in normals. The purpose of the present study relates to the latter of these objectives namely to extend previous findings [7] by using prism adaptation to further demonstrate the qualitative effects on line bisection.
Line bisection, a spatial judgement task that requires subjects to indicate the centre of a line is one of several traditional clinical tests commonly used to diagnose and define visual neglect [3], [11]. The test has the advantage of being simple, quantitative, and reproducible [12], [13]. At present two main versions of the test are currently used [35]: a manual version, in which subjects place a mark at the centre of a horizontal line and a perceptual judgement version (Landmark test), where subjects are simply requested to judge whether a line has been transected to the left or the right of its true centre. Both were employed in the current study to control for the possible independent effects of prisms on motor and perceptual aspects of task performance.
Two main aims were followed in the present series of experiments:
First, to replicate the directional bias previously observed in normals (Fig. 1) [7] on a line bisection task and then establish whether two further well-established clinical features of clinical line bisection/judgement performance could also be observed: (a) the position effect; (b) the length effect. In accordance with the position effect, the extent of the rightward bias for bisection in neglect patients is greatest when lines are presented to the left of the subject’s midline, moderate for lines presented straight-ahead and is substantially reduced for lines presented to the right of the subject’s midline. In accordance with the length effect, for lines presented straight-ahead, the extent of the rightward bias remains a function of line length (e.g. [36]). In addition, we tested whether the directional bias observed after prism exposure on line bisection is specific to the adaptation caused by the active pointing compared to a condition of “passive” exposure to prisms. The prediction is that only the former would produce a directional bias if the cognitive effects are dependent on the adaptation to prisms.
Second, simulating the characteristics of neglect-like symptoms in healthy individuals following prism adaptation would provide a tool to explore the interaction between low level sensori–motor processes and spatial cognition. Further, our study allows us to discuss the significance of these and other recent findings for understanding the neuropsychological mechanisms of the neglect syndrome.
Section snippets
Experiment 1
In Experiment 1, we explored whether the extent of the spatial bias following prism adaptation varies with the relative hemispatial location of the lines. In patients with neglect, the rightward bias for estimating the centre of horizontal lines strongly depends on the spatial location of the stimuli, e.g. the typical rightward bias is greater when lines are located to the left of the patient’s midline [12]. According to our previous results [7], we should observe a rightward bias in the
Experiment 2
The performance of neglect patients on line bisection typically shows an increase of the rightward proportional bias with increase in the length of the lines (e.g. [4], [12], [36]). In the second experiment, we investigated the after-effects of prism adaptation on line bisection (manual and perceptual) for lines of different lengths in healthy subjects. According to our previous results [7], we predicted a rightward bias in the estimation of the centre of the line after prism adaptation. As
Experiment 3
The first two experiments showed a clear cognitively mediated bias in line bisection tasks following adaptation to a leftward visual shift. It could however be questioned whether the cognitive bias was specific to prism adaptation or can be observed following prism exposure regardless of sensori–motor after-effects. Active movements during the prism exposure (compared with no or passive movements) are necessary for the development of the adaptation to prisms [16], [17]. However, several others
General discussion
Sensori–motor after-effects following prism adaptation are well established in normal subjects. By comparison, the after-effects of prisms on tasks considered to be assessing higher level cognitive processes have received attention only recently [50]. Recent research demonstrating a dramatic improvement in neglect at both the sensori–motor and cognitive levels following prism adaptation [50] has motivated a reconsideration of the traditional distinction. The aim of the present study was
Conclusion
Prism adaptation to the right improved left neglect in patients while prism adaptation to the left produced a moderate neglect-like behaviour in normals. More importantly, several of the main characteristics of neglect observed on line bisection task were qualitatively simulated in healthy normals following prism adaptation. None of these effects can be attributed to simple sensori–motor after-effects of the adaptation. Collectively, the neglect-like behaviours obtained in this and the previous
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grants from INSERM PROGRES and from the French Ministry of Research (ACI COGNITIQUE). CM was supported by funds from Fondation de France (Bourse de Neuro-Ophtalmologie Berthe Fouassier) and PWH by the UK Medical Research Council.
References (61)
- et al.
Line bisection and cognitive plasticity of unilateral neglect of space
Brain and Cognition
(1983) - et al.
How long is a piece of string? A study of line bisection in a case of visual neglect
Cortex
(1988) - et al.
Residual perceptual distorsion in ‘recovered’ hemispatial neglect
Neuropsychologia
(1999) Direction of gaze and distribution of cerebral thought processes
Neuropsychologia
(1974)- et al.
Motor and perceptual factor in pseudoneglect
Neuropsychologia
(1999) - et al.
Within- and between-task dissociations in visuo-spatial neglect: a case study
Cortex
(1995) - et al.
Cognitive and perceptual influence on visual line bisection: psychological and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect
Neuropsychologia
(1997) - et al.
To halve and to halve not: an analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects
Neuropsychologia
(1992) - et al.
Line bisection errors in visual neglect: misguided action or size distorsion?
Neuropsychologia
(1993) - et al.
Hemispheric control of spatial attention
Brain and Cognition
(1990)