Ayelet Sapir

Neural basis and recovery of spatial attention deficits in spatial neglect.

The syndrome of spatial neglect is typically associated with focal injury to the temporoparietal or ventral frontal cortex. This syndrome shows spontaneous partial recovery, but the neural basis of both spatial neglect and its recovery is largely unknown. We show that spatial attention deficits in neglect (rightward bias and reorienting) after right frontal damage correlate with abnormal activation of structurally intact dorsal and ventral parietal regions that mediate related attentional operations in the normal brain. Furthermore, recovery of these attention deficits correlates with the restoration and rebalancing of activity within these regions. These results support a model of recovery based on the re-weighting of activity within a distributed neuronal architecture, and they show that behavioral deficits depend not only on structural changes at the locus of injury, but also on physiological changes in distant but functionally related brain areas.

Component Processes in Task Switching

Participants switched between two randomly ordered, two-choice reaction-time (RT) tasks, where an instructional cue preceded the target stimulus and indicated which task to execute. Task-switching cost dissipated passively while the participants waited for the instructional cue in order to know which task to execute (during the Response-Cue Interval). Switching cost was sharply reduced, but not abolished, when the participants actively prepared for the task switch in response to the instructional cue (during the Cue-Target Interval). The preparation for a task switch has shown not to be a by-product of general preparation by phasic alertness or predicting target onset. It is suggested that task-switching cost has at least three components reflecting (1) the passive dissipation of the previous task set, (2) the preparation of the new task set, and (3) a residual component.

Parietal Lobe Lesions Disrupt Saccadic Remapping of Inhibitory Location Tagging

Maintaining a coherent percept of the visual scene while eye position continuously changes requires that saccades be accompanied by remapping of the visual environment. We studied saccadic remapping in patients with unilateral lesions in the intraparietal sulcus and healthy controls, using inhibition of return (IOR)an inhibitory tag that enables efficient visual search. In healthy controls, IOR was found at both retinal and environmental locations of the cue, indicating that the inhibitory tag had been remapped into environmental coordinates. In contrast, right parietal patients demonstrated IOR only at the retinal location of the cue, indicating that the intraparietal sulcus is involved in remapping of the environment after eye movements to afford a stable, environmentally based reference frame. Note that patients did not show environmental IOR in either visual field. These results also suggest that this region may be the neural substrate for encoding inhibitory spatial tags in an environmentally based reference frame.

Anatomical Correlates of Directional Hypokinesia in Patients with Hemispatial Neglect

Unilateral spatial neglect (neglect) is a syndrome characterized by perceptual deficits that prevent patients from attending and responding to the side of space and of the body opposite a damaged hemisphere (contralesional side). Neglect also involves motor deficits: patients may be slower to initiate a motor response to targets appearing in the left hemispace, even when using their unaffected arm (directional hypokinesia). Although this impairment is well known, its anatomical correlate has not been established. We tested 52 patients with neglect after right hemisphere stroke, and conducted an anatomical analysis on 29 of them to find the anatomical correlate of directional hypokinesia. We found that patients with directional hypokinesia had a lesion involving the ventral lateral putamen, the claustrum, and the white matter underneath the frontal lobe. Most importantly, none of the patients without directional hypokinesia had a lesion in the same region. The localization of neglects motor deficits to the basal ganglia establishes interesting homologies with animal data; it also suggests that a relative depletion of dopamine in the nigrostriatal pathway on the same side of the lesion may be an important pathophysiological mechanism potentially amenable to intervention.

Attentional asymmetry in schizophrenia: disengagement and inhibition of return deficits.

This research examined 2 components of visual orienting in medicated schizophrenia patients: the validity effect and the inhibition of return (IOR). In the 1st experiment, patients showed the expected asymmetry in orienting attention, that is, larger validity effect in the right visual field than in the left. However, this asymmetry was due to a deficit in facilitatory processes rather than a disengagement deficit. In addition, patients showed a deficit in IOR. In the 2nd experiment, a 2nd central cue for summoning attention, explicitly, back to the center was used. In this experiment, normal IOR in schizophrenia patients was found. Because it was shown that schizophrenia patients do not have a disengagement deficit, IOR possibly could not be observed because of the increased facilitation in that location. It was proposed that the abnormality in visual attention in schizophrenia is due to a deficit in inhibitory processes.

Hemispheric asymmetry in the remapping and maintenance of visual saliency maps: A tms study

Parietal cortex has been implicated in the updating, after eye movements, of a salience map that is required for coherent visual experience and for the control of visually guided behavior. The current experiment investigated whether TMS over anterior intraparietal cortex (AIPCx), just after a saccade, would affect the ability to update and maintain a salience map. In order to generate a salience map, we employed a paradigm in which an uninformative cue was presented at one object in a display to generate inhibition of return (IOR)—an inhibitory tag that renders the cued object less salient than others in the display, and that slows subsequent responses to visual transients at its location. Following the cue, participants made a saccade to either left or right, and we then probed for updating of the location of IOR by measuring manual reaction time to targets appearing at cued location of the cued compared to an uncued object. Between the time of saccade initiation and target appearance, dual-pulse TMS was targeted over right (Experiment 1) or left AIPCx (Experiment 2), and a vertex control side. Updating of the location of IOR was eliminated by TMS over right, but not the left, AIPCx, suggesting that right parietal cortex is involved in the remapping of IOR. Remapping was eliminated by right AIPCx, regardless of whether the saccade was made to the left (contralateral), or right (ipsilateral) visual field, and regardless of which field the target appeared in. We conclude that right AIPCx is the neural substrate for maintaining a salience map across saccades, and not simply for propagating an efference copy of saccade commands.

Attending to the thalamus: inhibition of return and nasal-temporal asymmetry in the pulvinar.

&NA; Inhibition of return (IOR) is a mechanism whereby the attentional system favors novel locations by inhibiting already scanned ones. An important question is what the neural structures are involved. Recently, we studied a patient with damage to the superior colliculus (SC) and concluded that the SC generates IOR. However, it is possible that IOR is generated beyond the colliculus, for example, by the pulvinar. In this paper we tested three patients with unilateral damage to the pulvinar and demonstrated that the pulvinar is not necessary for IOR generation, providing additional support to the suggestion that the SC generates IOR. In addition, since we used monocular presentation, we were able to furnish behavioral evidence for nasal‐temporal asymmetrical representation of visual input in the pulvinar.

Role of disengagement failure and attentional gradient in unilateral spatial neglect – a longitudinal study

Purpose: To assess the importance of ‘disengagement failure’ and ‘attentional gradient’ in unilateral spatial neglect (USN) and in recovery from neglect. Method: Eight right-hemisphere-damaged stroke patients performed the standardized Behavioural-Inattention-Test battery for visual neglect, line-bisection tests, and two computerized reaction-time (RT) tasks: a variant of Posners ‘Spatial-Cueing’ paradigm (with special emphasis on the magnitude of leftward disengagement time) and a signal-detection task (marking the spatial gradient of attention by the distribution of RTs to target stimuli in different spatial locations). The correlation between the different measures was assessed at two points in time, before and after a period of rehabilitation treatment. Results: A recovery pattern could be identified in both RT paradigms. However, the correlation between standard measures of neglect and performance on both, spatial-cueing and signal-detection tasks, was weak. Conclusion: Neither difficulty disengaging attention from an ipsilesional stimulus nor changes in the attentional gradient can fully explain the processes underlying USN and its recovery. A large interpersonal variance exists among USN patients in the expression of disengagement and other spatial-attention deficits. Hence, individual patients should be tested by measuring different factors known to play a role in USN. This information is crucial for assigning the appropriate treatment for each patient in accord with the specific deficit revealed.

Inhibition of return affects contrast sensitivity

Inhibition of return (IOR)—a slow response to targets at recently attended locations, is believed to play an important role in guiding behaviour. In the attention literature it has been shown that attentional capture by an exogenous cue affects contrast sensitivity so that it alters the appearance of low-contrast stimuli. Despite a significant amount of work over the last quarter century on IOR, it is not yet clear whether IOR operates in the same way. In the current study we examined the effect of IOR on contrast sensitivity—a very early, low-level perceptual process. We found in both a detection task and an orientation discrimination task that lower contrast was needed to detect the stimulus (Experiment 1) and determine its orientation (Experiment 2) at the cued location than at the uncued location, at short cue–target delays, while higher contrast was needed at long delays—reflecting IOR. These results clearly demonstrate that IOR affects contrast sensitivity in a similar way as attentional capture does and suggest that IOR increases perceived contrast of an object in the uncued location.

Attention to multiple locations is limited by spatial working memory capacity.

What limits the ability to attend several locations simultaneously? There are two possibilities: Either attention cannot be divided without incurring a cost, or spatial memory is limited and observers forget which locations to monitor. We compared motion discrimination when attention was directed to one or multiple locations by briefly presented central cues. The cues were matched for the amount of spatial information they provided. Several random dot kinematograms (RDKs) followed the spatial cues; one of them contained task-relevant, coherent motion. When four RDKs were presented, discrimination accuracy was identical when one and two locations were indicated by equally informative cues. However, when six RDKs were presented, discrimination accuracy was higher following one rather than multiple location cues. We examined whether memory of the cued locations was diminished under these conditions. Recall of the cued locations was tested when participants attended the cued locations and when they did not attend the cued locations. Recall was inaccurate only when the cued locations were attended. Finally, visually marking the cued locations, following one and multiple location cues, equalized discrimination performance, suggesting that participants could attend multiple locations when they did not have to remember which ones to attend. We conclude that endogenously dividing attention between multiple locations is limited by inaccurate recall of the attended locations and that attention poses separate demands on the same central processes used to remember spatial information, even when the locations attended and those held in memory are the same.