Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:12:57.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of illusory motion on line bisection performance in normal subjects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2005

KYUNG MOOK CHOI ,
BON D. KU ,
YONG JEONG ,
BYUNG HWA LEE ,
HYUN-JUNG AHN ,
SUE J. KANG ,
JUHEE CHIN ,
KENNETH M. HEILMAN  and
DUK L. NA
KYUNG MOOK CHOI
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
BON D. KU
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Gyeonggi, Korea
YONG JEONG
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, University of Florida and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA
BYUNG HWA LEE
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
HYUN-JUNG AHN
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
SUE J. KANG
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
JUHEE CHIN
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
KENNETH M. HEILMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, University of Florida and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA
DUK L. NA
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study examines whether illusory movement (IM) of a horizontal line, induced by a moving background (MB), influences line-bisection performance in normal subjects. The first experiment attempted to identify the speeds of MB that induce IM. We found that when speed is increased from 1.53° to 13.3°/sec, IM increases, but that with further speed increases, IM decreases. Leftward MB induces rightward IM, and vice versa. In the second experiment, we had subjects bisect lines at MB speeds that had been shown to induce IM in the first experiment. We found that leftward MB induced a rightward bias, and vice versa. We also found that there was a relationship between the magnitude of IM and the degree of bias. In the third experiment, by making the target line larger than the MB, we made the conditions where IM was presumably absent. Unlike the results of bisection performed with IM, subjects showed a bias in the direction of the MB. Overall, these experiments demonstrated that the perception of motion induces subjects to attend in the direction of movement. (JINS, 2005, 11, 881–888.)

Keywords

AttentionInduced motionMotion aftereffectMotion perceptionSpatial neglectVisual illusion
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 11 , Issue 7 , November 2005 , pp. 881 - 888
Copyright
© 2005 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bisiach, E., Pizzamiglio, L., Nico, D., & Antonucci, G. (1996). Beyond unilateral neglect. Brain, 119, 851–857.Google Scholar
Bisiach, E., McIntosh, R.D., Dijkerman, H.C., McClements, K.I., Colombo, M., & Milner, A.D. (2004). Visual and tactile length matching in spatial neglect. Cortex, 40, 651–657.Google Scholar
Bowers, D. & Heilman, K.M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 491–498.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A., Mennemeier, M., & Heilman, K.M. (1994). The psychophysical power law and unilateral spatial neglect. Brain and Cognition, 25, 92–107.Google Scholar
Harvey, M., Milner, A.D., & Roberts, R.C. (1995). An investigation of hemispatial neglect using the Landmark Task. Brain and Cognition, 27, 59–78.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Watson, R.T., & Valenstein, E. (2003). Neglect and related disorders. In K.M. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical Neuropsychology (4th ed., pp. 296–346). New York: Oxford University Press.
Heilman, K.M. & Van Den Abell, T. (1980). Right hemisphere dominance for attention: The mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries of in attention (neglect). Neurology, 30, 327–330.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M., Dorn, T.J., & Bach, M. (1999). Time course of motion adaptation: Motion-onset visual evoked potentials and subjective estimates. Vision Research, 39, 437–444.Google Scholar
Jeong, Y., Lee, B.H., Ahn, H.J., Park, K.C., Heilman, K.M., & Na, D.L. (2004). Attentional bias induced by viewing actual or illusionary movements. Neurology, 62, 1333–1337.Google Scholar
Jewell, G. & McCourt, M.E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93–110.Google Scholar
Mattingley, J.B., Bradshaw, J.L., & Bradshaw, J.A. (1994). Horizontal visual motion modulates focal attention in left unilateral spatial neglect. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 57, 1228–1235.Google Scholar
McCourt, M.E., Garlinghouse, M., & Slater, J. (2000). Centripetal versus centrifugal bias in visual line bisection: Focusing attention on two hypotheses. Frontiers in Bioscience, 5, 58–71.Google Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Vezey, E., Lamar, M., & Jewell, G. (2002). Crossover is not a consequence of neglect: A test of the orientation/estimation hypothesis. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 107–14.Google Scholar
Milner, A.D., Brechmann, M., & Pagliarini, L. (1992). To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 30, 515–526.Google Scholar
Milner, A.D., Harvey, M., Roberts, R.C., & Forster, S.V. (1993). Line bisection errors in visual neglect: Misguided action or size distortion? Neuropsychologia, 31, 39–49.Google Scholar
Na, D.L., Son, Y., Kim, C.H., Lee, B.H., Shon, Y.M., Lee, K.J., Lee, K.M., Adair, J.C., Watson, R.T., & Heilman, K.M. (2002). Effect of background motion on line bisection performance in normal subjects. Cortex, 38, 787–796.Google Scholar
Palmer, S.E. (1999). Vision science—photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pizzamiglio, L., Frasca, R., Guariglia, C., Incoccia, C., & Antonucci, G. (1990). Effect of optokinetic stimulation in patient with visual neglect. Cortex, 26, 535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, R.B. & Lott, L.A. (1990). Relationship of induced motion and apparent straight-ahead shifts to optokinetic stimulus velocity. Perception and psychophysics, 48, 401–406.Google Scholar
Rubens, A.B. (1985). Caloric stimulation and unilateral visual neglect. Neurology, 35, 1019–1024.Google Scholar
Shuren, J., Hartley, T., & Heilman, K.M. (1998). The effects of rotation on spatial attention. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 11, 72–75.Google Scholar
Tootell, R.B., Reppas, J.B., Dale, A.M., Look, R.B., Sereno, M.I., Malach, R., Brady, T.J., & Rosen, B.R. (1995). Visual motion after-effect in human cortical area MT revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nature, 375, 139–141.Google Scholar