Citation

Neuropsychology 2014; 29(2): 182.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/neu0000152

PMID

25285520

Abstract

Reports an error in "Ipsilesional Neglect: Behavioral and Anatomical Correlates" by Daniela L. Sacchetti, Kelly M. Goedert, Anne L. Foundas and A. M. Barrett (Neuropsychology, Advanced Online Publication, Sep 1, 2014, np). The funding source information was missing from the author note. The research in this article was funded by the National Institutes of Health (K02NS047099, K24HD062647, R01 NS055808, Barrett), National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (H133G120203, Barrett), and the Kessler Foundation. This does not imply endorsement of the manuscript contents by the federal government. Likewise, A. M. Barrett's institutional affiliation was incorrect. It should read: Kessler Foundation and Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2014-35685-001.) Objective: The sparse existing research on ipsilesional neglect supports an association of this disorder with damage to the right frontal and subcortical brain networks. It is believed that dysfunction in these networks may result in primarily "aiming" motor-intentional spatial errors. The purpose of this study was to confirm whether frontal-subcortical circuits are indeed commonly affected in ipsilesional neglect and to determine the relative presence of "aiming" motor-intentional versus "where" perceptual-attentional spatial errors in these individuals.

METHODS: We identified 12 participants with ipsilesional neglect based on a computerized line bisection task and used the line bisection data to quantify participants' perceptual-attentional and motor-intentional errors. We were able to discriminate between these 2 biases using the algebraic solutions for 2 separate equations, one for "aiming" and one for "where" biases. Lesion mapping was conducted for all participants using MRIcron software; lesion checklist and overlap analysis were created from these images.

RESULTS: A greater percentage of participants with ipsilesional neglect had frontal/subcortical damage (83%) compared with the expected percentage (27%) observed in published patient samples with contralesional neglect. We observed the greatest area of lesion overlap in frontal lobe white matter pathways. Nevertheless, participants with ipsilesional neglect made primarily "where" rather than "aiming" spatial errors.

CONCLUSION: Our data confirm previous research suggesting that ipsilesional neglect may result from lesions to the right frontal-subcortical networks. Furthermore, in our group, ipsilesional neglect was also strongly associated with primarily "where" perceptual-attentional bias, and less so with "aiming" motor-intentional spatial bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

Language: en