The anatomy of visual neglect

Mort, Dominic; Malhotra, Paresh; Mannan, Sabira K.; Rorden, Chris; Pambakian, A L M; Kennard, C

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2003.09.032

Cited by 69 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Neglect is an attentional deficit in sensation, movements, and/or representations of the contralesional (usually left) side of body and/or space that cannot be completely attributed to a sensory or motor loss [81]. It most often occurs following lesions to the right inferior parietal lobe and temporoparietal junction [108][109][110][111], but can also stem from lesions to other cortical and subcortical areas, such as the mid superior-temporal gyrus, angular gyrus, basal ganglia, and thalamus [112]. Neglect has served as an analogy to describe some of the neuropsychological symptoms found in CRPS.…”

Section: Lateralised Spatial Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, disruption to the parietal cortical network might provide a better framework for characterising these symptoms. This would incorporate "neglectlike" symptoms that are often reported in CRPS (which in hemispatial neglect are often associated with temporoparietal right hemisphere lesions [109][110][111]). However, the parietal framework would also include other changes in spatial cognition that are not consistent with reduced attention to the affected relative to unaffected side (e.g., the shift of the egocentric reference frame towards the affected side [68,70] or a leftward spatial bias regardless of which side is affected by CRPS [40,66]).…”

Section: Conclusion and Outstanding Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neuropsychological Changes in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)

Halicka

Vitterso

Proulx

et al. 2020

Behavioural Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a poorly understood chronic pain condition of multifactorial origin. CRPS involves sensory, motor, and autonomic symptoms primarily affecting one extremity. Patients can also present with neuropsychological changes such as reduced attention to the CRPS-affected extremity, reminiscent of hemispatial neglect, yet in the absence of any brain lesions. However, this “neglect-like” framework is not sufficient to characterise the range of higher cognitive functions that can be altered in CRPS. This comprehensive literature review synthesises evidence of neuropsychological changes in CRPS in the context of potential central mechanisms of the disorder. The affected neuropsychological functions constitute three distinct but not independent groups: distorted body representation, deficits in lateralised spatial cognition, and impairment of non-spatially-lateralised higher cognitive functions. We suggest that many of these symptoms appear to be consistent with a broader disruption to parietal function beyond merely what could be considered “neglect-like.” Moreover, the extent of neuropsychological symptoms might be related to the clinical signs of CRPS, and rehabilitation methods that target the neuropsychological changes can improve clinical outcomes in CRPS and other chronic pain conditions. Based on the limitations and gaps in the reviewed literature, we provide several suggestions to improve further research on neuropsychological changes in chronic pain.

show abstract

Section: Lateralised Spatial Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion and Outstanding Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuropsychological Changes in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)

Halicka

Vitterso

Proulx

et al. 2020

Behavioural Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Allied with the notion that cerebral asymmetry is uniquely human is an assumption that a single mechanism underlies all cerebral asymmetries, including those favoring the right hemisphere. For instance, Crow3 has attributed asymmetries to the counterclockwise ‘torque’ in the structure of the human brain, comprising a forward extension of the right hemisphere relative to the left, and a posterior extension of the left relative to the right22—although it has long been known that this asymmetry is also present in great apes 23. A related idea is that the right‐cerebral dominance for spatial attention,23 and other right‐hemisphere specializations, arise as a secondary consequence of the left‐cerebral dominance for hand preference and language,1,24 implying a common basis.…”

Section: Cerebral Asymmetries: Changing Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Right hand, left brain: genetic and evolutionary bases of cerebral asymmetries for language and manual action

Corballis

Badzakova-Trajkov

Häberling

2011

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most people are right-handed and left-cerebrally dominant for language. This pattern of asymmetry, as well as departures from it, have been reasonably accommodated in terms of a postulated gene with two alleles, one disposing to this common pattern and the other leaving the direction of handedness and language asymmetry to chance. There are some leads as to the location of the gene or genes concerned, but no clear resolution; one possibility is that the chance factor is achieved by epigenetic cancelling of the lateralizing gene rather than through a chance allele. Neurological evidence suggests that the neural basis of manual praxis, including pantomime and tool use, is more closely associated with cerebral asymmetry for language than with handedness, and is homologous with the so-called "mirror system" in the primate brain, which is specialized for manual grasping. The evidence reviewed supports the theory that language itself evolved within the praxic system, and became lateralized in humans, and perhaps to a lesser extent in our common ancestry with the great apes. WIREs Cogn Sci 2012, 3:1-17. doi: 10.1002/wcs.158 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

show abstract

“…Here, experienced raters commonly delineate the lesions manually on MR images or the computed tomography (CT) scans of an individual patient (Borovsky et al, 2007;Karnath and Perenin, 2005;Moro et al, 2008;Mort et al, 2003). While this procedure yields exact regions of interest, such manual delineation in current high-resolution images is also very labor-intensive and thus time-consuming (Ashton et al, 2003;Seghier et al, 2008), and efforts to speed up a manual rating procedure may impair performance, reducing its benefit (Elsheikh et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%