ArticleCognitive and behavioral neurology : official journal of the Society for Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology2012
Line copying: distinct "where" and "aiming" spatial bias in healthy adults.
Article in Cognitive and behavioral neurology : official journal of the Society for Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial neglect treatment: The brain's spatial-motor Aiming systems.Neuropsychological rehabilitation · 2022Review
- Midline Body Actions and Leftward Spatial "Aiming" in Patients with Spatial Neglect.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2015Article
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
Abstract
backgroundSpatial bias in natural, implicit tasks such as reaching and grasping may manifest differently from that in arbitrary laboratory-experiment line bisection tasks. Because spatial processing in everyday activities is difficult to quantify, it is important to study spatial behavior in an implicit laboratory task. Drawing tasks of copying lines or objects integrate spatial perceptual-attentional ("where") input and motor-intentional ("aiming") output, and may be more implicit than line bisection because participants are unaware that the placement of their drawings will be assessed.
objectivesWe examined whether it is possible to distinguish "where" and "aiming" spatial biases in a line-copying task. We examined changes in "where" and "aiming" biases in response to bottom-up versus top-down cues (hemispace presentation and drawing direction).
methodsIn 13 healthy adults, we collected copied-line displacements and lengths in both the natural (left-right congruency) and reversed (left-right incongruency) viewing conditions, to distinguish "where" and "aiming" biases.
resultsParticipants displaced lines leftward (P=0.01) as they copied, displaying primarily a "where" bias. They displaced lines in the drawing direction irrespective of viewing condition, a finding consistent with induced "aiming" effects (P=0.291). Presenting lines on participants' right or left side did not affect the "where" spatial bias. Cues did not affect copied-line lengths.
conclusionsWe showed that an implicit laboratory-experiment task of copying lines can discern complex stages of spatial processing in healthy adults. Further evaluation of this task will greatly contribute to the understanding of mechanisms of human spatial cognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.