Visual feedback explains why propointing is better than antipointing in spatial neglect

Kathrin S Utz, Constanze Hesse, Annika Hintz, Daniela Grüneberger, Hartwig Kulke, Inga Roth, Thomas Klos, Vaclav Kromichal, Arthur Melms, Wilfried Schupp, Detlef Khol, Thomas Schenk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Rossit et al. (2011) showed that neglect patients perform normally in a propointing task but not in an antipointing task which requires pointing towards the mirrored position of a target. It is assumed that antipointing relies on information from the perceptual pathway of our visual brain. Therefore, this finding supports the notion that neglect is a disorder that primarily affects perceptual spatial representations within the brain leaving spatial maps used for visuomotor guidance intact. Alternatively, performance of patients might be compromised in both tasks, but only obviously so in tasks in which online corrections are made more difficult. It can be argued that online-corrections via visual feedback are less effective in antipointing because a direct comparison between hand and target is not possible in this condition. Secondly, it is also known that neglect patients have a pronounced egocentric bias which is assumed to be associated with a deviation of the perceived body midline. Since the midline is used to compute the end-position in the antipointing task this could also explain why patients are worse in antipointing. We investigated the influence of visual feedback on pro- and antipointing and the effect of providing a visual reference line for the antipointing task in right-brain damaged patients with neglect (n=20), right-brain damaged patients without neglect (n=23) and in a group of healthy participants (n=22). The withdrawal of visual feedback had a stronger effect on propointing compared to antipointing. This effect was stronger in neglect patients than in patients without neglect or healthy controls. The introduction of a reference line reduced errors in antipointing performance, particularly in neglect patients with a strong egocentric bias. The results support our alternative account and challenge the hypothesis that the spatial disorder in neglect affects primarily perceptual maps within the visual system.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)114-127
Number of pages14
JournalCortex
Volume98
Early online date25 May 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2018

Fingerprint

Sensory Feedback
Brain
Visual Pathways
Healthy Volunteers
Hand

Keywords

  • visuomotor control
  • allocentric
  • egocentric
  • pointing
  • antipointing

Cite this

Utz, K. S., Hesse, C., Hintz, A., Grüneberger, D., Kulke, H., Roth, I., ... Schenk, T. (2018). Visual feedback explains why propointing is better than antipointing in spatial neglect. Cortex, 98, 114-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.05.012

Visual feedback explains why propointing is better than antipointing in spatial neglect. / Utz, Kathrin S; Hesse, Constanze; Hintz, Annika; Grüneberger, Daniela ; Kulke, Hartwig ; Roth, Inga ; Klos, Thomas ; Kromichal, Vaclav ; Melms, Arthur ; Schupp, Wilfried ; Khol, Detlef; Schenk, Thomas.

In: Cortex, Vol. 98, 01.2018, p. 114-127.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Utz, KS, Hesse, C, Hintz, A, Grüneberger, D, Kulke, H, Roth, I, Klos, T, Kromichal, V, Melms, A, Schupp, W, Khol, D & Schenk, T 2018, 'Visual feedback explains why propointing is better than antipointing in spatial neglect', Cortex, vol. 98, pp. 114-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.05.012
Utz, Kathrin S ; Hesse, Constanze ; Hintz, Annika ; Grüneberger, Daniela ; Kulke, Hartwig ; Roth, Inga ; Klos, Thomas ; Kromichal, Vaclav ; Melms, Arthur ; Schupp, Wilfried ; Khol, Detlef ; Schenk, Thomas. / Visual feedback explains why propointing is better than antipointing in spatial neglect. In: Cortex. 2018 ; Vol. 98. pp. 114-127.
@article{dd6fe456e9fe4b4fa86941965dbb9493,
title = "Visual feedback explains why propointing is better than antipointing in spatial neglect",
abstract = "Rossit et al. (2011) showed that neglect patients perform normally in a propointing task but not in an antipointing task which requires pointing towards the mirrored position of a target. It is assumed that antipointing relies on information from the perceptual pathway of our visual brain. Therefore, this finding supports the notion that neglect is a disorder that primarily affects perceptual spatial representations within the brain leaving spatial maps used for visuomotor guidance intact. Alternatively, performance of patients might be compromised in both tasks, but only obviously so in tasks in which online corrections are made more difficult. It can be argued that online-corrections via visual feedback are less effective in antipointing because a direct comparison between hand and target is not possible in this condition. Secondly, it is also known that neglect patients have a pronounced egocentric bias which is assumed to be associated with a deviation of the perceived body midline. Since the midline is used to compute the end-position in the antipointing task this could also explain why patients are worse in antipointing. We investigated the influence of visual feedback on pro- and antipointing and the effect of providing a visual reference line for the antipointing task in right-brain damaged patients with neglect (n=20), right-brain damaged patients without neglect (n=23) and in a group of healthy participants (n=22). The withdrawal of visual feedback had a stronger effect on propointing compared to antipointing. This effect was stronger in neglect patients than in patients without neglect or healthy controls. The introduction of a reference line reduced errors in antipointing performance, particularly in neglect patients with a strong egocentric bias. The results support our alternative account and challenge the hypothesis that the spatial disorder in neglect affects primarily perceptual maps within the visual system.",
keywords = "visuomotor control, allocentric, egocentric, pointing, antipointing",
author = "Utz, {Kathrin S} and Constanze Hesse and Annika Hintz and Daniela Gr{\"u}neberger and Hartwig Kulke and Inga Roth and Thomas Klos and Vaclav Kromichal and Arthur Melms and Wilfried Schupp and Detlef Khol and Thomas Schenk",
note = "Kathrin S. Utz held a post-doctoral research fellowship of the Friedrich-AlexanderUniversity Erlangen-Nuremberg (program for the promotion of equal opportunities of women in science) at the time of data collection. Thomas Schenk was supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG, grant no’s: DFG-SCHE 735/2-1 and DFG-SCHE 735/3-1).",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cortex.2017.05.012",
language = "English",
volume = "98",
pages = "114--127",
journal = "Cortex",
issn = "0010-9452",
publisher = "Masson SpA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Visual feedback explains why propointing is better than antipointing in spatial neglect

AU - Utz, Kathrin S

AU - Hesse, Constanze

AU - Hintz, Annika

AU - Grüneberger, Daniela

AU - Kulke, Hartwig

AU - Roth, Inga

AU - Klos, Thomas

AU - Kromichal, Vaclav

AU - Melms, Arthur

AU - Schupp, Wilfried

AU - Khol, Detlef

AU - Schenk, Thomas

N1 - Kathrin S. Utz held a post-doctoral research fellowship of the Friedrich-AlexanderUniversity Erlangen-Nuremberg (program for the promotion of equal opportunities of women in science) at the time of data collection. Thomas Schenk was supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG, grant no’s: DFG-SCHE 735/2-1 and DFG-SCHE 735/3-1).

PY - 2018/1

Y1 - 2018/1

N2 - Rossit et al. (2011) showed that neglect patients perform normally in a propointing task but not in an antipointing task which requires pointing towards the mirrored position of a target. It is assumed that antipointing relies on information from the perceptual pathway of our visual brain. Therefore, this finding supports the notion that neglect is a disorder that primarily affects perceptual spatial representations within the brain leaving spatial maps used for visuomotor guidance intact. Alternatively, performance of patients might be compromised in both tasks, but only obviously so in tasks in which online corrections are made more difficult. It can be argued that online-corrections via visual feedback are less effective in antipointing because a direct comparison between hand and target is not possible in this condition. Secondly, it is also known that neglect patients have a pronounced egocentric bias which is assumed to be associated with a deviation of the perceived body midline. Since the midline is used to compute the end-position in the antipointing task this could also explain why patients are worse in antipointing. We investigated the influence of visual feedback on pro- and antipointing and the effect of providing a visual reference line for the antipointing task in right-brain damaged patients with neglect (n=20), right-brain damaged patients without neglect (n=23) and in a group of healthy participants (n=22). The withdrawal of visual feedback had a stronger effect on propointing compared to antipointing. This effect was stronger in neglect patients than in patients without neglect or healthy controls. The introduction of a reference line reduced errors in antipointing performance, particularly in neglect patients with a strong egocentric bias. The results support our alternative account and challenge the hypothesis that the spatial disorder in neglect affects primarily perceptual maps within the visual system.

AB - Rossit et al. (2011) showed that neglect patients perform normally in a propointing task but not in an antipointing task which requires pointing towards the mirrored position of a target. It is assumed that antipointing relies on information from the perceptual pathway of our visual brain. Therefore, this finding supports the notion that neglect is a disorder that primarily affects perceptual spatial representations within the brain leaving spatial maps used for visuomotor guidance intact. Alternatively, performance of patients might be compromised in both tasks, but only obviously so in tasks in which online corrections are made more difficult. It can be argued that online-corrections via visual feedback are less effective in antipointing because a direct comparison between hand and target is not possible in this condition. Secondly, it is also known that neglect patients have a pronounced egocentric bias which is assumed to be associated with a deviation of the perceived body midline. Since the midline is used to compute the end-position in the antipointing task this could also explain why patients are worse in antipointing. We investigated the influence of visual feedback on pro- and antipointing and the effect of providing a visual reference line for the antipointing task in right-brain damaged patients with neglect (n=20), right-brain damaged patients without neglect (n=23) and in a group of healthy participants (n=22). The withdrawal of visual feedback had a stronger effect on propointing compared to antipointing. This effect was stronger in neglect patients than in patients without neglect or healthy controls. The introduction of a reference line reduced errors in antipointing performance, particularly in neglect patients with a strong egocentric bias. The results support our alternative account and challenge the hypothesis that the spatial disorder in neglect affects primarily perceptual maps within the visual system.

KW - visuomotor control

KW - allocentric

KW - egocentric

KW - pointing

KW - antipointing

U2 - 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.05.012

DO - 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.05.012

M3 - Article

VL - 98

SP - 114

EP - 127

JO - Cortex

JF - Cortex

SN - 0010-9452

ER -