Improvement of left visuo-spatial hemineglect by left-sided transcutaneous electrical stimulation

Vallar, Giuseppe; Rusconi, Maria Luisa; Barozzi, S.; Bernardini, Bruno; Ovadia, Daniela; Papagno, Costanza; Cesarani, Antonio

doi:10.1016/0028-3932(94)00088-7

Cited by 133 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As Farne and coworkers have pointed out [22], when the scanning direction is controlled, left neglect patients may no longer manifest any ipsilesional deviation of their ER. This rules out any causal relationship between deviation of the ER and clinical signs of neglect, but underlines the role of scanning strategies on the amount of left neglect signs, as demonstrated in other visuo-spatial protocols, including visual [22] and auditory straight-ahead pointing [65], line bisection [14,46,53] and rod bisection [34]. More experiments are needed to assess the nature of this effect of the scanning direction on estimation of the subjective middle, which, according to Halligan et al [29], could be interpreted in terms of the direction of "the attentional spotlight used to approach the middle."…”

Section: Absence Of a Systematic Ipsilesional Deviation Of The Egocenmentioning

confidence: 79%

Visual, proprioceptive and tactile performance in left neglect patients

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with unilateral spatial neglect due to right-hemisphere lesions typically fail to attend to and explore left-sided stimulus objects [32]. It has been postulated that in right-brain damaged (RBD) patients an ipsilesional displacement of the egocentric frame of reference (ER), whether visual or tactile, may be responsible for a contralesional supramodal spatial bias causing their left neglect behavior [39]. However, this hypothesis had been proposed without testing, in the same patients, the position of the ER or their performance in the visual and tactile modalities. Thus, the aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that an ipsilateral shift of the ER is responsible for a supramodal spatial bias in neglect.For this purpose, a within-subject design is required. Consequently, 12 left neglect patients and 12 control subjects were asked to perform a proprioceptive straight-ahead pointing task while blindfolded, as well as visual and tactile bisection tasks.In the left neglect patients, we found:(i) no systematic deviation of the ER on the ipsilesional right side; (ii) a significant rightward bias in visual bisection, and normal performance in tactile bisection; (iii) no correlation among the three tasks; (iv) that only visual bisection correlated with the severity of neglect.These results are discussed with regard to the egocentric and attentional hypothesis of neglect.

show abstract

Section: Absence Of a Systematic Ipsilesional Deviation Of The Egocenmentioning

confidence: 79%

Visual, proprioceptive and tactile performance in left neglect patients

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Galvanic vestibular stimulation improved significantly neglect symptoms in one level IIa study (Rorsman et al, 1999). Transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the left neck muscles showed significant effects in three level IIa studies (Vallar et al, 1995;Guariglia et al, 1998;Perennou et al, 2001). Changes in trunk orientation had significantly positive effects in one level Ib study (Wiart et al, 1997).…”

Section: Rehabilitation Of Ulnmentioning

confidence: 92%

EFNS Guidelines on cognitive rehabilitation: report of an EFNS Task Force

Cappa

Benke²,

Clarke

et al. 2003

Euro J of Neurology

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This indicates that additional factors such as cutaneous sensations, unpleasantness and pain may also have had an effect in our protocol. Some authors have speculated that potential effects of transcutaneous electrical stimulation may be due to a non-specific sensory activation orienting general attention to the stimulated side and/or to a non-specific activation of the contralateral cerebral hemisphere (Pérennou, Amblard, Leblond, & Pélis-sier, 1998;Vallar et al, 1995). Others have found that transcutaneous electrical stimulation to the neck had little or no influence on spatial perception (Karnath, 1995).…”

Section: Additional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How vestibular stimulation interacts with illusory hand ownership

Lopez

Lenggenhager

Blanke

2010

Consciousness and Cognition

113

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tArtificial stimulation of the peripheral vestibular system has been shown to improve ownership of body parts in neurological patients, suggesting vestibular contributions to bodily self-consciousness. Here, we investigated whether galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) interferes with the mechanisms underlying ownership, touch, and the localization of one's own hand in healthy participants by using the ''rubber hand illusion" paradigm. Our results show that left anodal GVS increases illusory ownership of the fake hand and illusory location of touch. We propose that these changes are due to vestibular interference with spatial and/or temporal mechanisms of visual-tactile integration leading to an enhancement of visual capture. As only left anodal GVS lead to such changes, and based on neurological data on body part ownership, we suggest that this vestibular interference is mediated by the right temporo-parietal junction and the posterior insula.

show abstract

Improvement of left visuo-spatial hemineglect by left-sided transcutaneous electrical stimulation

Cited by 133 publications

References 21 publications

Visual, proprioceptive and tactile performance in left neglect patients

Visual, proprioceptive and tactile performance in left neglect patients

EFNS Guidelines on cognitive rehabilitation: report of an EFNS Task Force

How vestibular stimulation interacts with illusory hand ownership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About