The neuropsychology of 3-D space.

Previc, Fred H.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.123

Cited by 519 publications

(429 citation statements)

References 500 publications

(920 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

408

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[18]. Evidence for a neurobiological distinction between peripersonal (near) and extrapersonal (far) space had already been obtained some twenty years ago in monkey [19].…”

Section: Selective Impairments Of Imaginal Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial cognition: evidence from visual neglect

Halligan

Fink

Marshall

et al. 2003

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

503

274

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work on human attention and representational systems has benefited from a growing interplay between research on normal attention and neuropsychological disorders such as visual neglect. Research over the past 30 years has convincingly shown that, far from being a unitary condition, neglect is a protean disorder whose symptoms can selectively affect different sensory modalities, cognitive processes, spatial domains and coordinate systems. These clinical findings, together with those of functional neuroimaging, have increased knowledge about the anatomical and functional architecture of normal subsystems involved in spatial cognition. We provide a selective overview of how recent investigations of visual neglect are beginning to elucidate the underlying structure of spatial processes and mental representations.Once considered a unitary syndrome, it is now accepted that visuospatial neglect results from the interplay of damage to several different cognitive processes [1,2]. Even within such relatively simple tasks as copying or spontaneous drawing, patients show many qualitatively distinct patterns of omission and distortion in 'left' space [3].Deficits of attention, intention, global-local processing, spatial memory and mental representation can all contribute to the clinical picture of neglect, which accordingly cannot be traced back to the disruption of a single supramodal process [1,4]. Many of the symptoms traditionally ascribed to left neglect share little in common other than a contra-lesional gradient of increasing impairment, with comparatively well -preserved performance on the ipsilesional (right) side of space [1,5].Although characterising and remediating the clinical condition [1,2,5] are clearly crucial, the primary interest for cognitive neuroscience is how conditions such as visual neglect can inform existing cognitive theory and functional anatomy. That an abnormal bias towards one side of space can exist in the absence of contralateral peripheral sensory or motor loss (e.g. visual field losses or hemi-paralysis) suggests that impairment to higher level processes must be involved. The standard approach taken by cognitive neuropsychology characterises complex mental processes as information-processing systems with separate but interconnected components. Some of the informationprocessing stages involved in visual object recognition (see Fig. 1) illustrate the potential levels and links where lateralised deficits can arise after brain damage.This model charts the processing routes from preattentive assignment of simple structural features (i.e. without the need for focused attention and conscious awareness) to post-attentional integration of local and global processing (involving selective attention and conscious awareness) and the assignment of relevant spatial frames of reference prior to recognition and naming.

show abstract

“…[18]. Evidence for a neurobiological distinction between peripersonal (near) and extrapersonal (far) space had already been obtained some twenty years ago in monkey [19].…”

Section: Selective Impairments Of Imaginal Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial cognition: evidence from visual neglect

Halligan

Fink

Marshall

et al. 2003

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

503

274

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the temporal marker hypothesis sonal space), whereas the vibrotactile cues were delivered to the body (in peripersonal space; cf. Previc, 1998Previc, , 2000. Ho, Tan, and Spence (2006) suggested that presenting a cue that is directionally congruent (i.e., in the left-right dimension) with respect to a visual target might not be sufficient to produce significant spatial attentional effects (i.e., performance benefits).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory, tactile, and multisensory cues facilitate search for dynamic visual stimuli

Ngo

Spence

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For each angle, there were three distances of the ball from the person, Near (120 pixels, 6.39˚, from the centre of her head), Mid (240 pixels, 12.78˚), and Far (360 pixels, 19.17˚). It has long been established that perceptual processes partition space surrounding an observer according to increased distance from the body (Cutting & Vishton, 1995;Previc, 1998). One particularly salient (though gradual) transition is between the peripersonal region immediately surrounding the body and the region beyond (Longo & Lourenco, 2006;Lourenco & Longo, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociating contributions of head and torso to spatial reference frames: The misalignment paradigm

Alsmith

Ferrè

Longo

2017

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word count: 5724 words (excluding references and title page)The Misalignment Paradigm 2 AbstractWhen we represent someone's view of a scene as egocentrically structured, where do we represent the origin of the reference frame? By analysing responses in a spatial perspectivetaking task as a function of spatial location with respect to both head and torso, we isolated the respective contribution of each part to spatial judgments. Both the head and the torso contributed to judgements, though with greater contributions from the torso. A second experiment manipulating visual contrast of the torso showed that this does not reflect lowlevel differences in visual salience between body parts. Our results demonstrate that spatial perspective-taking relies on a weighted combination of reference frames centred on different parts of the body.The Misalignment Paradigm 3

show abstract

The neuropsychology of 3-D space.

Cited by 519 publications

References 500 publications

Spatial cognition: evidence from visual neglect

Spatial cognition: evidence from visual neglect

Auditory, tactile, and multisensory cues facilitate search for dynamic visual stimuli

Dissociating contributions of head and torso to spatial reference frames: The misalignment paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About