ArticleNeuropsychology2015
"Ipsilesional neglect: Behavioral and anatomical correlates": Correction to Sacchetti et al. (2014).
Article in Neuropsychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledReports an error in "Ipsilesional Neglect: Behavioral and Anatomical Correlates" by Daniela L. Sacchetti, Kelly M. Goedert, Anne L. Foundas and A. M. Barrett (Neuropsychology, Advanced Online Publication, Sep 1, 2014, np). The funding source information was missing from the author note, and A. M. Barrett's institutional affiliation was incorrect. The funding source information and Barrett's correct institutional affiliation are provided in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2014-35685-001.)
objectiveThe sparse existing research on ipsilesional neglect supports an association of this disorder with damage to the right frontal and subcortical brain networks. It is believed that dysfunction in these networks may result in primarily "aiming" motor-intentional spatial errors. The purpose of this study was to confirm whether frontal-subcortical circuits are indeed commonly affected in ipsilesional neglect and to determine the relative presence of "aiming" motor-intentional versus "where" perceptual-attentional spatial errors in these individuals.
methodsWe identified 12 participants with ipsilesional neglect based on a computerized line bisection task and used the line bisection data to quantify participants' perceptual-attentional and motor-intentional errors. We were able to discriminate between these 2 biases using the algebraic solutions for 2 separate equations, one for "aiming" and one for "where" biases. Lesion mapping was conducted for all participants using MRIcron software; lesion checklist and overlap analysis were created from these images.
resultsA greater percentage of participants with ipsilesional neglect had frontal/subcortical damage (83%) compared with the expected percentage (27%) observed in published patient samples with contralesional neglect. We observed the greatest area of lesion overlap in frontal lobe white matter pathways. Nevertheless, participants with ipsilesional neglect made primarily "where" rather than "aiming" spatial errors.
conclusionOur data confirm previous research suggesting that ipsilesional neglect may result from lesions to the right frontal-subcortical networks. Furthermore, in our group, ipsilesional neglect was also strongly associated with primarily "where" perceptual-attentional bias, and less so with "aiming" motor-intentional spatial bias.
Identifiers
25285520What 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.