To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects

Milner, A. David; Brechmann, M.; Pagliarini, Luigi

doi:10.1016/0028-3932(92)90055-q

Cited by 301 publications

(241 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

218

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The main aim of the present study was to investigate whether the Overhead (Task 1, adapted from Nico [32]), Pulley Device (Task 2, adapted from Bisiach et al [4]) and Landmark Tasks (Task 3, adapted from Milner et al [25]) categorised the same set of patients in the same way.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Milner et al devised a very simple way of distinguishing between the two broad factors assumed to cause the right line bisection errors [25,26]. They argued that if such errors are due to a perceptual distortion, possibly as the result of an attentional and/or representational failure, then a centrally pre-bisected line (landmark) should appear to the patient to be leftwardly bisected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, would the patients that were classified as say premotor in Bisiach et al's Pulley Device Task [4] because they showed a reduced rightward error in the incongruent condition have also shown this in the line bisection version of Nico et al's [32] Overhead Task, and indeed have produced more rightward-pointing biases in Milner and colleagues' [25,26] Landmark Task? Are all these techniques tapping the taxonomic distinction in the same way or are the task demands too heterogeneous to allow a consistent categorisation across tasks?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By directly comparing the Pulley Device [4], Overhead [32] and Landmark Tasks [25,26] we hoped to address whether all these different attempts do indeed classify individual neglect patients in the same way. Moreover, we wanted to investigate the relationship between lesion location and their association to perceptual and premotor neglect within and across tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Categorisation of ‘perceptual’ and ‘premotor’ neglect patients across different tasks: is there strong evidence for a dichotomy?

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the presented studies was to investigate whether classifications of neglect patients into perceptual (i.e. identifying a patient as suffering from mainly attentional/space representation deficits) and premotor (judging the main impairment to be related towards actions into contralesional space) categories is consistent across different line bisection assessment techniques that have, in the past, been designed to tease these potentially overlapping aspects of hemispatial neglect apart.Twelve patients with hemispatial neglect and three control groups were tested with the Overhead Task, adapted from Nico [Neuropsychologia 34 (1996) 471] in which patients were asked to bisect lines that were mirror reversed, the Pulley Device Technique, adapted from Bisiach et al. [Neurology 40 (1990) 1278] in which they had to perform a movement opposite to the direction of the transaction mark that bisected the line and the Landmark Test, adapted from Milner et al. [Neuropsychologia 30 (1992) 515] in which they had to manually point to the half of a centrally pre-bisected line that, to them, appeared shorter. The specific question was whether these three tasks would categorise the same set of patients in the same way?Most patients could be classified into either the premotor or perceptual category in each task, but no consistent categorisation emerged across the three techniques. Just 1 out of the 12 patients, was consistently classified across all three tasks. It seemed that despite the fact that all tasks essentially required a line bisection response, the perceptual and motor differences between the tasks were still great enough to result in inconsistent classifications. The Landmark Task classified the majority of patients into the perceptual neglect category, while the Overhead and Pulley Device Techniques tended to identify more patients as suffering from a premotor deficit (albeit not the same set of patients).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Categorisation of ‘perceptual’ and ‘premotor’ neglect patients across different tasks: is there strong evidence for a dichotomy?

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These studies indicated that this kind of perceptual judgment seems to comprise an impressive range of cognitive operations. Some evidence pointed out that attentional and perceptual factors, instead of aspects related to stimuli orientation, determine observers' responses (Milner, Brechmann, & Pagliarini, 1992). Thus, a bisection task is a visual measure sensitive to attentional and motor bias either in normal or in pathological observers (Jewell & McCourt;McCourt & Olafson, 1997;Milner et al).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distance perception in a natural outdoor setting: is there a developmental trend to overconstancy?

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of the present study was to investigate whether in natural environment, using very large physical distances, there is a trend to overconstancy for distance estimates during development. One hundred and twenty-nine children aged 5 to 13 years old and twenty-one adults (in a control group), participated as observers. The observer's task was to bisect egocentric distances, ranging from 1.0 to 296.0 m, presented in a large open field. The analyses focused on two parameters, constant errors and variable errors, such as measuring accuracy and precision, respectively. A third analysis focused on the developmental pattern of shifts in constancy as a function of age and range of distances. Constant error analysis showed that there are two relevant parameters for accuracy, age, and range of distances. For short distances, there are three developmental stages: 5-7 years, when children have unstable responses, 7-11, underconstancy, and 13 to adulthood, when accuracy is reached. For large distances, there is a two-stage development: 5-11 years, with severe underconstancy, and beyond this age, with mild underconstancy. Variable errors analyses indicate that precision is noted for 7 year-old children, independently of the range of distances. The constancy analyses indicated that there is a shift from constancy (or slightly overconstancy) to underconstancy as a function of physical distance for all age groups. The age difference is noted in the magnitude of underconstancy that occurs in larger distances, where adults presented lower levels of underconstancy than children. The present data were interpreted as due to a developmental change in cognitive processing rather than to changes in visual space perception. Keywords: visual perception, space perception, perceptual development, psychophysics, child psychology, egocentric distance El principal objetivo de este estudio fue investigar si en un medio natural, empleando distancias físicas muy grandes, hay una tendencia a sobre-constancia para las estimaciones de distancias durante el desarrollo evolutivo. Participaron como observadores 129 niños de edades entre 5 y 13 años y 21 adultos (en un grupo control). La tarea de los observadores consistió en biseccionar unas distancias egocéntricas, que variaban entre 1,0 y 296,0 m, presentadas en un gran campo abierto. El análisis se centró en dos parámetros, error constante y error variable, de la exactitud y precisión de medida, respectivamente. Un tercer análisis se centró en el patrón evolutivo de cambios en la constancia en función de la edad y el rango de distancias. El análisis de los errores constantes mostró que hay dos parámetros relevantes para la precisión, edad y rango de distancias. Para distancias cortas, hay tres fases evolutivas: 5-7 años, cuando los niños dan respuestas inestables, 7-11, infra-constancia, y 13 años hasta la adultez, cuando alcanzan la exactitud (constancia). Para las distancias largas, hay un desarrollo de dos fases: 5-11 años, con infra-constancia severa, y más allá de esta edad, con l...

show abstract

Rumination as a Function of Goal Progress, Stop Rules, and Cerebral Lateralization

Martin

Shrira

Startup

2003

Depressive Rumination

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects

Cited by 301 publications

References 18 publications

Categorisation of ‘perceptual’ and ‘premotor’ neglect patients across different tasks: is there strong evidence for a dichotomy?

Categorisation of ‘perceptual’ and ‘premotor’ neglect patients across different tasks: is there strong evidence for a dichotomy?

Distance perception in a natural outdoor setting: is there a developmental trend to overconstancy?

Rumination as a Function of Goal Progress, Stop Rules, and Cerebral Lateralization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About