Whereas the chimeric non-face object task used by Sarri et al (2

Whereas the chimeric non-face object task used by Sarri et al. (2006) ‘explicitly’ tested for awareness of the contralesional space, requiring identification and naming of specific object halves, the chimeric face task of Mattingley et al.

(1994), as used by Sarri et al. (2006) and Ferber et al. (2003), is more ‘implicit’ in nature, possibly tapping into a lateral ‘preference’ or bias for one or other side of space, regardless of information content. In the chimeric face task (of judging which face looks happier, the upper or lower) there is in fact no objective correct response, since the two chimeric face tasks are perfect mirror images of each other (see Fig. 1B) and hence objectively contain the same amount of emotional expression. Anticancer Compound Library ic50 The present study was designed to explore potential reasons for the apparent discrepancy between the impact of prism adaptation on different measures for neglect, as observed in Sarri et al. (2006). First, we hypothesised that if the lack of a prism effect in the chimeric face expression judgement task is simply due to the special nature of face stimuli in general, Rapamycin in vivo then prism adaptation should likewise have no effect on neglect for other tasks involving chimeric face tasks. But the lack of a prism effect on the chimeric face expression task might also potentially reflect the ‘emotional’

nature of the task. If so, we would expect a different outcome in a task requiring non-emotional judgements for the same face stimuli, or in a ‘lateral preference task’ employing non-emotional, non-face stimuli. On the other hand, if the lack of prism benefit for the chimeric

face expression task is due to the nature of the task used (which can be considered a more ‘implicit’ or ‘indirect’ measure of spatial awareness, since there is no right or wrong answer), then Grape seed extract we should find a similar outcome (i.e., no prism benefit) for other tasks of that nature in neglect, even if not using face stimuli. By the same token, we might find a positive impact of prism therapy for tasks employing chimeric face stimuli, but requiring more ‘explicit’ recognition for the left side of the chimeras, by analogy with the chimeric objects studied in Sarri et al. (2006). We thus examined the impact of the prism intervention on neglect performance in tasks employing both face and non-face stimuli, for tasks requiring ‘explicit’ or more ‘indirect’ measures of perceptual awareness, in ‘emotional’ or ‘non-emotional’ contexts. Here we assessed a new case-series of 11 neglect patients (see Fig. 2 for a summary of their lesions, and the Results section for a summary of clinical details). We first sought to assess any impact of the prism intervention on the chimeric expression lateral preference face task (as previously reported to be absent for 3 cases by Sarri et al., 2006, and for one case by Ferber et al., 2003).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>