title: Categorisation of 'perceptual' and 'premotor' neglect patients across different tasks: is there strong evidence for a dichotomy?
abstract: The aim of the presented studies was to investigate whether classifications of neglect patients into perceptual (i.e. identifying a patient as suffering from mainly attentional/space representation deficits) and premotor (judging the main impairment to be related towards actions into contralesional space) categories is consistent across different line bisection assessment techniques that have, in the past, been designed to tease these potentially overlapping aspects of hemispatial neglect apart. Twelve patients with hemispatial neglect and three control groups were tested with the Overhead Task, adapted from Nico [Neuropsychologia 34 (1996) 471] in which patients were asked to bisect lines that were mirror reversed, the Pulley Device Technique, adapted from Bisiach et al. [Neurology 40 (1990) 1278] in which they had to perform a movement opposite to the direction of the transaction mark that bisected the line and the Landmark Test, adapted from Milner et al. [Neuropsychologia 30 (1992) 515] in which they had to manually point to the half of a centrally pre-bisected line that, to them, appeared shorter. The specific question was whether these three tasks would categorise the same set of patients in the same way?Most patients could be classified into either the premotor or perceptual category in each task, but no consistent categorisation emerged across the three techniques. Just 1 out of the 12 patients, was consistently classified across all three tasks. It seemed that despite the fact that all tasks essentially required a line bisection response, the perceptual and motor differences between the tasks were still great enough to result in inconsistent classifications. The Landmark Task classified the majority of patients into the perceptual neglect category, while the Overhead and Pulley Device Techniques tended to identify more patients as suffering from a premotor deficit (albeit not the same set of patients).
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow, UK. m.harvey@psy.gla.ac.uk
authors.forename: Monika
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Harvey
authors.forename: Tanja
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Krämer-McCaffery
authors.forename: Lindsay
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Dow
authors.forename: Peter J S
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Murphy
authors.forename: Iain D
authors.initials: ID
authors.lastname: Gilchrist
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology; D001931:Brain Mapping; D002540:Cerebral Cortex / Q000503:physiopathology; D004292:Dominance, Cerebral / Q000502:physiology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007699:Kinesthesis / Q000502:physiology; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D009949:Orientation / Q000502:physiology; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology; D010468:Perceptual Disorders / Q000145:classification* / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000503:physiopathology; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D020521:Stroke / Q000145:classification / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000503:physiopathology