Closing-In Behavior and Motor Distractibility in Persons with Brain Injury

Ambron, Elisabetta; Beschin, Nicoletta; Cerrone, Chiara; Sala, Sergio Della

doi:10.1093/arclin/acy033

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This account, for example, could explain the poor performance of these patients in the Trail Making or Star Cancellation tasks. This interpretation is also in line with the evidence that patients with CIB are more prone to distractor interference than patients without CIB, showing a marked deviation of the movement trajectory toward the focus of attention ( Ambron et al, 2018b ). This account further predicts that CIB would be more likely to appear as the size of the shape to be copied increases.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…In contrast, the “attraction” account provides CIB an independent status from constructional deficits and considers CIB to be an extreme manifestation of a default tendency of the motor system, so that the actions would be performed toward the focus of attention. Further specification of this interpretation proposes that CIB would represent a primitive coupling between attention and action released by a decrease of attention and/or executive resources ( McIntosh et al, 2008 ; Ambron et al, 2018a , b ). The accounts make different predictions regarding the anatomic bases of CIB.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Closing-in Behavior and Parietal Lobe Deficits: Three Single Cases Exhibiting Different Manifestations of the Same Behavior

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Closing-in behavior (CIB) is observed in copying tasks (graphic or gestural) when the copy is performed near or on the top of the model. This symptom has been classically considered to be a manifestation of constructional apraxia and is often associated with a visuospatial impairment. More recent work emphasizes the attentional and/or executive nature of the behavior and its association with frontal lobe dysfunction. We describe three patients in whom CIB was associated with posterior parietal deficits of different etiologies (stroke in Patient 1 and dementia in Patients 2 and 3). In copying figures, Patient 1 produced the shape with high accuracy but the rendering overlapped the model, while for Patients 2 and 3 the copies were distorted but overlapping or in close proximity to the target. In gesture imitation, Patient 2 performed the gestures toward the examiner’s space, while Patient 1 showed a peculiar form of CIB: when he was asked to place the ipsilesional arm in a position that mirrored the contralesional hand, Patient 1 moved his hand toward his contralesional hand. Patient 3 did not present gestural CIB. While CIB in Patient 1 was associated with selective deficits in executive functions and attention, additional visuospatial deficits were observed in Patients 2 and 3. The latter two patients showed a general visuoconstructional deficit. These case studies support a primary attentional account of CIB but also suggest that visuoconstructional impairments may contribute to the emergence of CIB, in some subjects. This evidence argues for different types of CIB with different cognitive and neural underpinnings. Furthermore, the data support the hypothesis of a differential involvement of fronto-parietal network in CIB.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%