Advances in neurology and neuroscience research最新文献

Three studies that used experimental manipulations of stimulus context and correlational analyses were conducted to examine how contextual effects influence magnitude estimation and the crossover effect on line bisection. Previous work had shown that although orienting attention to one end of a line prior to bisection determines the direction in which crossover occurs, bias in magnitude estimation actually produces the crossover effect. The influence of contextual effects on magnitude estimation, however, was not examined in these previous models of crossover. Consequently, the purpose of the present investigation was to examine these effects. Subjects in the current studies were healthy controls and people who had right and left hemisphere injury due to stroke, both with and without spatial neglect. Study 1 examined the crossover effect for lines bisected with and without a stimulus context. Study 2 examined both stimulus order as well as response order context effects on magnitude estimation. Study 3 examined how much variance in magnitude estimation was accounted for by stimulus contextual effects and how stimulus context influenced the crossover effect. The results showed that contextual bias was ubiquitous but relatively small in the magnitude estimates of normal subjects. Contextual bias was exaggerated to a similar degree in subjects with right or left hemisphere injury due to stroke, but the amount of variance accounted by contextual bias was still quite small. A novel finding of study 2 was that contextual effects can be induced by previous responses to stimuli as well as by the magnitude of preceding stimuli in subjects with unilateral brain injury. This may be a contextual effect related to response perseveration. Finally, studies 1 and 3 indicated that contextual effects strengthened the crossover effect on line bisection, primarily on relatively short lines. Contextual effects, however, cannot fully account for the crossover effect, because crossover bisections were observed also in the absence of a stimulus context. It is concluded that the crossover effect is explained by biases in attentional orientation and magnitude estimation. Contextual effects represent one source of bias in magnitude estimation that influences the crossover effect by promoting contralateral errors on short line lengths (<2 cm).

Objectives: This paper examines if ratio scaling, the principle behind the psychophysical Power Law, is similarly performed by the left and right cerebral hemispheres and how magnitude estimates derived in each hemisphere are integrated.

Method: Three models of hemispheric integration were tested (dominance, summation, and inhibition) using a cross-modal matching procedure in right-handed, male subjects. Visual stimuli were presented to one or both hemispheres using a tachistoscopic method to test each model. Olfactory stimuli were also presented to one or both nares (hemispheres) to test the dominance and summation models.

Results: A dominance model was not supported as there was little difference in ratio scaling between hemispheres for either visual or olfactory stimuli. A summation model was supported for olfactory but not visual integration. Inter-hemispheric inhibition did not account for hemispheric integration.

Conclusions: The most interesting findings stemmed from a comparison of experimental conditions within rather than between hemispheres. Ratio scaling parameters, the sizes of the exponents and constants, appeared to be driven by the amount of stimulation provided to a hemisphere - a greater amount being associated with higher exponents and lower constants. Variability in ratio scaling, how well data fit power functions, corresponded to whether the hemispheres received equal amounts of stimulation - equal stimulation producing a better fit than unequal stimulation. We conclude that stimulus induced cerebral activation influences the form of power functions; whereas equivalency of stimulation between hemispheres influenced the fit.

Objective: This study examined whether and how the absolute thresholds and the just noticeable difference thresholds for eleven, sensory/perceptual continua are altered by unilateral left and right hemisphere lesions due to stroke relative to healthy subjects.

Methods: The three subject groups were those with unilateral right hemisphere lesions (n=21), with unilateral left hemisphere lesions (n=13), and age-matched control subjects (n=76). Absolute thresholds of sensory detection and just noticeable difference thresholds were assessed for perceptual continua spanning the visual, tactile, proprioceptive, thermal, and gustatory sensory modalities. For stroke subjects, brain lesions were analyzed using subtraction techniques and volume analysis with the MRIcro and MRIcroN software programs. Stroke subjects also complete tests for spatial neglect, stroke severity and functional independence.

Results: There was no significant difference among subject groups regarding gender, race, hand dominance, age, or educational composition. There was no significant difference between subjects with right and left hemisphere lesions on measures of function, stroke severity, or lesion volume except for those with spatial neglect. The RHL group had a higher percentage of impaired perceptual continua (16%) than both normal controls (4%) and the LHL group (9%). If a stoke subject had an impaired threshold on one side of the body, they were ~5 times more likely to have an impaired threshold on the other side of the body. This result was more consistent and even exaggerated (~8 times more likely) in the small percentage of normal control subjects who demonstrated "impaired" sensory thresholds. Lesion volume was positively correlated with stroke severity and sensory threshold impairment, and it was negatively correlated with functional independence.

Conclusions: When subjects, have difficulty detecting and discriminating sensory experiences, they tend to do so on both sides of the body. Unilateral right hemisphere stroke appeared to increase the relative frequency of altered thresholds occurring on the contralesional side of the body even though they made errors on both sides.