Prism adaptation to rightward optical shifts during visually guided pointing is considered a promising intervention in right-hemisphere stroke patients with left spatial neglect. Conventionally, prism adaptation is assessed via aftereffects, on subjective straight ahead (SSA) pointing with eyes closed; or by visual open-loop pointing (VOL), i.e. pointing to a visual target without seeing the hand. Previous data suggest indirectly that prism aftereffects in neglect patients may be larger (pathologically so) when assessed by SSA than by VOL. But these measures have never been directly compared within the same patients after identical prism exposure. Accordingly we implemented both measures here within the same group of 13 neglect patients and 13 controls. Prism aftereffects were much larger for SSA than VOL in neglect patients, falling outside the normative range only for SSA. This may arise because the SSA task can itself involve aspects of neglect that may be ameliorated by the prism intervention, hence showing abnormal changes after prisms. The extent of SSA change after prisms varied between patients, and correlated with improvements on a standard cancellation measure for neglect. The lesions of patients who did versus did not show neglect improvement immediately after prisms provide an initial indication that lack of improvement may potentially relate to cortical damage in right intraparietal sulcus and white matter damage in inferior parietal lobe and middle frontal gyrus. Future studies of possible rehabilitative impact from prisms upon neglect may need to consider carefully how to measure prism adaptation per se, separately from any impact of such adaptation upon manifestations of neglect.

Unilateral neglect involves deficits of spatial exploration and awareness that do not always affect a fixed portion of extrapersonal space, but may vary with current stimulation and possibly with task demands. Here, we assessed any 'top-down', task-related influences on visual neglect, with novel experimental variants of the cancellation test. Many different versions of the cancellation test are used clinically, and can differ in the extent of neglect revealed, though the exact factors determining this are not fully understood. Few cancellation studies have isolated the influence of top-down factors, as typically the stimuli are changed also when comparing different tests. Within each of three cancellation studies here, we manipulated task factors, while keeping visual displays identical across conditions to equate purely bottom-up factors. Our results show that top-down task-demands can significantly modulate neglect as revealed by cancellation on the same displays. Varying the target/non-target discrimination required for identical displays has a significant impact. Varying the judgement required can also have an impact on neglect even when all items are targets, so that non-targets no longer need filtering out. Requiring local versus global aspects of shape to be judged for the same displays also has a substantial impact, but the nature of discrimination required by the task still matters even when local/global level is held constant (e.g. for different colour discriminations on the same stimuli). Finally, an exploratory analysis of lesions among our neglect patients suggested that top-down task-related influences on neglect, as revealed by the new cancellation experiments here, might potentially depend on right superior temporal gyrus surviving the lesion.

Prism adaptation can ameliorate some symptoms of left spatial neglect after right-hemisphere stroke. The mechanisms behind this remain unclear. Prism therapy may increase exploration towards the contralesional side, yet without improving perceptual awareness, as apparently for the left side of chimeric face stimuli (Ferber et al. 2003). However, other prism studies suggest that perceptual awareness might be improved (e.g., Maravita et al., 2003). We tested the impact of prism therapy on visual awareness for the left side of chimeric objects as well as chimeric faces, in three neglect patients. Prism therapy dramatically improved awareness for the identity of the left side of chimeric non-face objects, but had no effect on judging expressions for chimeric faces. The latter may thus be unique in showing no prism benefit.