Explore the vast range of titles available.

Previous studies have found reduced leftward bias of facial processing in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). However, it is not clear whether they manifest a leftward bias in general visual processing. To shed light on this issue, the current study used the manual line bisection task to assess children 5 to 15 years of age with ASD as well as typically developing (TD) children. Results showed that children with ASD, similar to TD children, demonstrate a leftward bias in general visual processing, especially for bisecting long lines (≧ 80 mm). In both groups, participant performance in line bisection was affected by the hand used, the length of the line, the cueing symbol, and the location of the symbol. The ASD group showed a rightward bias when bisecting short lines (30 mm) with their left hands, which slightly differed from the TD group. These results indicate that while ASD individuals and TD individuals share a similar leftward bias in general visual processing, when using their left hands to bisect short lines, ASD individuals may show an atypical bias pattern.

Several studies have shown that space immediately surrounding the body, or the peripersonal space is represented differently in the brain from the more distant extra-personal space. Moreover, the boundary of peripersonal space can be extended to space surrounding the tip of a tool held by the hand. However, it is not known if tools need to be connected to the body to modulate the peripersonal space. We used a line bisection task to investigate whether peripersonal space representation surrounds a virtual hand avatar that is disconnected from the body. Healthy participants conducted a line bisection task by responding with either a virtual hand avatar or a laser pointer. The to-be-bisected lines were presented either in peripersonal or extra-personal space. When the lines were placed in extra-personal space, the virtual hand avatar was presented near the line such that the hand avatar was far from participants and disconnected from their bodies. Results indicated a shift in the line bisection bias from the left to the right as the line presentation distance increased when using the laser pointer, whereas no shift in bias was observed when using the virtual hand avatar. This result indicates that objects resembling human hands presented even at a distance and disconnected from the body can be integrated into the peripersonal space, which suggests that peripersonal space representation is more flexible than previously reported.

How stress affects functional hemispheric asymmetries is relevant because stress represents a risk factor for the development of mental disorders and various mental disorders are associated with atypical lateralization. Using three lateralization tasks, we investigated whether functional hemispheric asymmetries in the form of hemispheric dominance for language (verbal dichotic listening task), emotion processing (emotional dichotic listening task), and visuo-spatial attention (line bisection task) were affected by acute stress in healthy adults. One hundred twenty right-handed men and women performed these lateralization tasks in randomized order after exposure to a mild online stressor (i.e., an online variant of the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST), TSST-OL) and a non-stressful online control task (friendly TSST-OL, fTSST-OL) in a within-subjects design. Importantly, the verbal and the emotional dichotic listening tasks were presented online whereas the line bisection task was completed in paper–pencil form. During these tasks, we found the expected hemispheric asymmetries, indicating that online versions of both the verbal and the emotional dichotic listening task can be used to measure functional hemispheric asymmetries in language and emotion processing remotely. Even though subjective and physiological markers confirmed the success of the online stress manipulation, replicating previous studies, we found no stress-induced effect on functional hemispheric asymmetries. Thus, in healthy participants, functional hemispheric asymmetries do not seem to change flexibly in response to acute stress.

Background/Objectives: The line bisection task (LBT) is a well-known test in which a horizontal line is presented in front of the subject and the subject is asked to draw a mark vertically bisecting the line. We developed the new LBT using three-dimensionally transformed rectangles to enhance the sense of depth and evaluated the influence of vestibular dysfunction on the deviation. Methods: One hundred participants were recruited from patients referred to the vertigo outpatient clinic. The average deviation in the LBT was the leftward deviation in the figures viewed from the right side and the rightward deviation in the figures viewed from the left side, indicating that the figures were perceived three-dimensionally, with the division point deviating to the far side. Results: In multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) analyses, the significant leftward deviation was observed in the group with vestibular dysfunction in caloric testing, and the significant rightward deviation dependent on increasing age was also observed. In univariate analyses, the significant leftward deviation in the figure viewed from the left side (135 degrees) was observed in the group with vestibular dysfunction in caloric testing, and the significant leftward deviation was also observed in figures viewed from the center, left or right side (0, 15 and 165 degrees) in the group with vestibular dysfunction in vHIT evaluation. Conclusions: Vestibular dysfunction can alter the deviation in the new LBT, suggesting the potential of the new LBT as an assessment of vestibular dysfunction.

A variety of studies showed that participants are facilitated when responding to graspable objects, while it has not been fully investigated what happens during interactions with graspable objects that are potentially dangerous. The present study focuses on the mechanisms underlying the processing of dangerous objects. In two experiments, we adopted a paradigm that has never been employed in this context, a bisection task. The line was flanked by objects belonging to different categories. We explored the sensitivity to the distinction between neutral and dangerous objects, by measuring whether the performance was biased toward a specific object category. In Experiment 1 both teenagers and adults bisected lines flanked by dangerous and neutral graspable objects, and they misperceived the line midpoint toward the neutral graspable object or, stated differently, on the opposite side of the dangerous graspable object. In Experiment 2 adults bisected lines flanked by dangerous and neutral objects matched on graspability (both graspable and ungraspable, Experiment 2a), or by graspable and ungraspable objects matched on dangerousness (both neutral and dangerous, Experiment 2b). Results confirmed the finding of Experiment 1, but also indicated that participants misperceived the line midpoint toward the ungraspable object when it was presented, being it dangerous or not. This evidence demonstrated sensitivity to object dangerousness maintained across lifespan. The emergence of aversive affordances evoked by dangerous graspable objects strenghtens the importance to consider graspability in the investigation of dangerous objects. Possible neural mechanisms involved in the processing of dangerous graspable objects are discussed.

Eighty-eight Bulgarian children (range 5 – 7 years old), 40 left handers (18 boys) and 48 right handers (26 boys), completed line-bisection test one time with each hand. In accordance with previous studies the results show that the majority of children demonstrated deviation to the left of the true center with the left hand and to the right with the right hand, suggesting symmetrical neglect. Sex, handedness and their interaction had no main effect on mean percentage deviation scores at the group level, but only sex had a significant impact on the frequency of symmetrical neglect (p < .05), with higher one in girls than in boys.

The temporary improvement of visuospatial neglect during galvanic vestibular stimulation (Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 31 (1999)117) may result from correction of the spatial reference frame distorted by the responsible lesion. Prior to an investigation of the neural basis of this effect in neurological patients, exploration of the neural mechanisms underlying such procedures in normals is required to provide insight into the physiological basis thereof. Despite their clinical impact, the neural mechanisms underlying the interaction of galvanic (and other) vestibular manipulations with visuospatial processing (and indeed the neural bases of how spatial reference frames are computed in man) remain to be clarified. We accordingly used fMRI in normal volunteers to investigate the effect of galvanically induced interference with the egocentric spatial reference frame on the neural processes underlying allocentric visuospatial (line bisection) judgments. A significant specific interaction of galvanic vestibular stimulation with the neural mechanisms underlying allocentric visuospatial judgments was observed in right posterior parietal and ventral premotor cortex only. Activation of these areas previously found to be damaged in visuospatial neglect suggests that these effects reflect the increased processing demands when compensating for the distorted egocentric spatial reference frame while maintaining accurate performance during the allocentric spatial task. These results thus implicate right posterior parietal and right ventral premotor cortex in the computation of spatial reference frames. Furthermore, our data imply a specific physiological basis for the temporary improvement of visuospatial neglect in patients with right hemisphere lesions during galvanic vestibular stimulation and may thus impact upon the rehabilitation of neglect: understanding the interaction of galvanic vestibular stimulation with allocentric visuospatial judgments in healthy volunteers may lead to the more effective deployment of such techniques in neurological patients.

Major evidence for a right-hemisphere dominance of the brain in spatial and/or attentional tasks comes from lesion studies in patients with spatial neglect. However, the neuroanatomy of the different forms of neglect remains a matter of debate, and it remains unclear how dysfunctions in neglect relate to intact processes. In the healthy brain, perceptual pseudoneglect has been considered to be a phenomenon complementary to specific subtypes of neglect as observed in paradigms such as the line bisection task. Therefore, the current study investigated the intact functional anatomy of perceptual pseudoneglect using a meta-analysis to compensate for some of the limitations of individual imaging studies. We collated the data from 24 articles that tested 952 participants with a range of paradigms (landmark task, line bisection, grating-scales task, and number line task) obtaining 337 foci. Using Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) we identified a right-hemisphere biased network of cortical areas, including superior and intraparietal regions, the intraoccipital sulcus together with other occipital regions, as well as inferior frontal areas that were associated with perceptual pseudoneglect in partial agreement with lesion studies in patients with neglect. Our study is the first meta-analysis on the mechanisms underlying perceptual judgments which have been shown to give rise to perceptual pseudoneglect.

Young adults exhibit a small asymmetry of visuospatial attention that favours the left side of space relative to the right (pseudoneglect). However, it remains unclear whether this leftward bias is maintained, eliminated or shifted rightward in older age. Here we present two meta-analyses that aimed to identify whether adults aged ≥50 years old display a group-level spatial attention bias, as indexed by the line bisection and the landmark tasks. A total of 69 datasets from 65 studies, involving 1654 participants, were analysed. In the meta-analysis of the line bisection task (n = 63), no bias was identified for studies where the mean age was ≥50, but there was a clear leftward bias in a subset where all individual participants were aged ≥50. There was no moderating effect of the participant’s age or sex, line length, line position, nor the presence of left or right cues. There was a small publication bias in favour of reporting rightward biases. Of note, biases were slightly more leftward in studies where participants had been recruited as part of a stand-alone older group, compared to studies where participants were recruited as controls for a clinical study. Similarly, no spatial bias was observed in the meta-analysis of the landmark task, although the number of studies included was small (n = 6). Overall, these results indicate that over 50s maintain a group-level leftward bias on the line bisection task, but more studies are needed to determine whether this bias can be modulated by stimulus- or state-dependent factors.

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.