ArticleExperimental brain research2005
Loss of visual information in neglect: the effect of chromatic- versus luminance-contrast stimuli in a "what" task.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnocellular and parvocellular influences on reflexive attention.Vision research · 2011Article
- The perceptual consequences of the attentional bias: evidence for distractor removal.Experimental brain research · 2008Article
- Visually guided, aimed movements can be unaffected by stimulus-response uncertainty.Experimental brain research · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One to four vertical bars were tachistoscopically presented at various eccentricities along the horizontal meridian to patients with right brain damage and neglect (n=7) and to a control group of right brain damaged patients without neglect (n=4). Luminance contrast stimuli and isoluminant chromatic contrast stimuli were used. The patients' task was to report the number of bars. With luminance stimuli the neglect patients' discrimination in the left visual field was reduced, particularly at the most leftward position tested (ca 20 degrees ) where about 20% of the bars were omitted. The loss of information was limited to luminance contrast stimuli. When chromatic contrast stimuli were used, accuracy was comparable in the two hemifields and between groups of patients. The differential pattern of results for chromatic and luminance contrast stimuli is consistent with the hypothesis of a selective deficit of the magno-cellular pathway in neglect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15654582What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.