Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32891646›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychologia2020

The reliability of pseudoneglect is task dependent.

A G Mitchell, J M Harris, S E Benstock, J M Ales

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

A G MitchellSchool of Psychology, Philosophy & Language Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, UK; School of Psychology & Neuroscience, The University of St Andrews, UK. Electronic address: alexandra.mitchell@ed.ac.uk.
J M HarrisSchool of Psychology & Neuroscience, The University of St Andrews, UK.
S E BenstockSchool of Psychology & Neuroscience, The University of St Andrews, UK.
J M AlesSchool of Psychology & Neuroscience, The University of St Andrews, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 10521/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bisection tasks that require individuals to identify the midpoint of a line are often used to assess the presence of biases to spatial attention in both healthy and patient populations. These tasks have helped to uncover a phenomenon called pseudoneglect, a bias towards the left-side of space in healthy individuals. First identified in the tactile domain, pseudoneglect has been subsequently demonstrated in other sensory modalities such as vision. Despite this, the specific reliability of pseudoneglect within individuals across tasks and time has been investigated very little. In this study, we investigated the reliability of response bias within individuals across four separate testing sessions and during three line bisection tasks: landmark, line bisection and tactile rod bisection. Strong reliability was expected within individuals across task and session. Pseudoneglect was found when response bias was averaged across all tasks, for the entire sample. However, individual data showed biases to both left and right, with some participants showing no clear bias, demonstrating individual differences in bias. Significant, cross-session within-individual reliability was found for the landmark and tactile rod bisection tasks respectively, but no significant reliability was observed for the line bisection task. These results highlight the inconsistent nature of pseudoneglect within individuals, particularly across sensory modality. They also provide strong support for the use of the landmark task as the most reliable measure of pseudoneglect.

Indexed as

AttentionSpace PerceptionFunctional LateralityHumansReproducibility of ResultsTouchVision, OcularAttentionPerceptionPseudoneglectReliability

Identifiers

PMID32891646
PMCPMC7718110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.