Ting Wang, Tom de Graaf, Lisabel Tanner, Teresa Schuhmann, Felix Duecker, Alexander T Sack
{"title":"TMS引起的半球不对称对空间注意的影响:Meta分析。","authors":"Ting Wang, Tom de Graaf, Lisabel Tanner, Teresa Schuhmann, Felix Duecker, Alexander T Sack","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09614-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hemispheric asymmetry is a fundamental principle in the functional architecture of the brain. It plays an important role in attention research where right hemisphere dominance is core to many attention theories. Lesion studies seem to confirm such hemispheric dominance with patients being more likely to develop left hemineglect after right hemispheric stroke than vice versa. However, the underlying concept of hemispheric dominance is still not entirely clear. Brain stimulation studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) might be able to illuminate this concept. To examine the putative hemispheric asymmetry in spatial attention, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies applying inhibitory TMS protocols to the left or right posterior parietal cortices (PPC), assessing effects on attention biases with the landmark and line bisection task. A total of 18 studies including 222 participants from 1994 to February 2022 were identified. The analysis revealed a significant shift of the perceived midpoint towards the ipsilateral hemifield after right PPC suppression (Cohen's d = 0.52), but no significant effect after left PPC suppression (Cohen's d = 0.26), suggesting a hemispheric asymmetry even though the subgroup difference does not reach significance (p = .06). A complementary Bayesian meta-analysis revealed a high probability of at least a medium effect size after right PPC disruption versus a low probability after left PPC disruption. This is the first quantitative meta-analysis supporting right hemisphere-specific TMS-induced spatial attention deficits, mimicking hemineglect in healthy participants. We discuss the result in the light of prominent attention theories, ultimately concluding how difficult it remains to differentiate between these theories based on attentional bias scores alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"838-849"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473452/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hemispheric Asymmetry in TMS-Induced Effects on Spatial Attention: A Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ting Wang, Tom de Graaf, Lisabel Tanner, Teresa Schuhmann, Felix Duecker, Alexander T Sack\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11065-023-09614-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Hemispheric asymmetry is a fundamental principle in the functional architecture of the brain. It plays an important role in attention research where right hemisphere dominance is core to many attention theories. Lesion studies seem to confirm such hemispheric dominance with patients being more likely to develop left hemineglect after right hemispheric stroke than vice versa. However, the underlying concept of hemispheric dominance is still not entirely clear. Brain stimulation studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) might be able to illuminate this concept. To examine the putative hemispheric asymmetry in spatial attention, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies applying inhibitory TMS protocols to the left or right posterior parietal cortices (PPC), assessing effects on attention biases with the landmark and line bisection task. A total of 18 studies including 222 participants from 1994 to February 2022 were identified. The analysis revealed a significant shift of the perceived midpoint towards the ipsilateral hemifield after right PPC suppression (Cohen's d = 0.52), but no significant effect after left PPC suppression (Cohen's d = 0.26), suggesting a hemispheric asymmetry even though the subgroup difference does not reach significance (p = .06). A complementary Bayesian meta-analysis revealed a high probability of at least a medium effect size after right PPC disruption versus a low probability after left PPC disruption. This is the first quantitative meta-analysis supporting right hemisphere-specific TMS-induced spatial attention deficits, mimicking hemineglect in healthy participants. We discuss the result in the light of prominent attention theories, ultimately concluding how difficult it remains to differentiate between these theories based on attentional bias scores alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"838-849\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473452/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09614-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09614-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
半球不对称是大脑功能结构中的一个基本原理。它在注意力研究中发挥着重要作用,其中右半球优势是许多注意力理论的核心。损伤研究似乎证实了这种半球优势,患者在右半球卒中后更容易出现左半忽视,反之亦然。然而,半球优势的基本概念仍然不完全清楚。使用经颅磁刺激(TMS)的大脑刺激研究可能能够阐明这一概念。为了检验空间注意力中假定的半球不对称性,我们对将抑制性TMS方案应用于左或右顶叶后皮质(PPC)的研究进行了荟萃分析,用界标和线平分任务评估对注意力偏差的影响。从1994年到2022年2月,共确定了18项研究,包括222名参与者。分析显示,在右侧PPC抑制后,感知中点向同侧半野的显著移动(Cohen’s d = 0.52),但在左PPC抑制后没有显著影响(Cohen’s d = 0.26),表明半球不对称,即使亚组差异没有达到显著性(p = .06)。一项补充贝叶斯荟萃分析显示,右侧PPC破坏后至少中等效果大小的概率较高,而左侧PPC破坏前的概率较低。这是第一个支持右半球特异性TMS诱导的空间注意力缺陷的定量荟萃分析,模拟了健康参与者的半侧忽视。我们根据著名的注意力理论讨论了这一结果,最终得出结论,仅根据注意力偏差得分来区分这些理论仍然有多困难。
Hemispheric Asymmetry in TMS-Induced Effects on Spatial Attention: A Meta-Analysis.
Hemispheric asymmetry is a fundamental principle in the functional architecture of the brain. It plays an important role in attention research where right hemisphere dominance is core to many attention theories. Lesion studies seem to confirm such hemispheric dominance with patients being more likely to develop left hemineglect after right hemispheric stroke than vice versa. However, the underlying concept of hemispheric dominance is still not entirely clear. Brain stimulation studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) might be able to illuminate this concept. To examine the putative hemispheric asymmetry in spatial attention, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies applying inhibitory TMS protocols to the left or right posterior parietal cortices (PPC), assessing effects on attention biases with the landmark and line bisection task. A total of 18 studies including 222 participants from 1994 to February 2022 were identified. The analysis revealed a significant shift of the perceived midpoint towards the ipsilateral hemifield after right PPC suppression (Cohen's d = 0.52), but no significant effect after left PPC suppression (Cohen's d = 0.26), suggesting a hemispheric asymmetry even though the subgroup difference does not reach significance (p = .06). A complementary Bayesian meta-analysis revealed a high probability of at least a medium effect size after right PPC disruption versus a low probability after left PPC disruption. This is the first quantitative meta-analysis supporting right hemisphere-specific TMS-induced spatial attention deficits, mimicking hemineglect in healthy participants. We discuss the result in the light of prominent attention theories, ultimately concluding how difficult it remains to differentiate between these theories based on attentional bias scores alone.
期刊介绍:
Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.