ArticleScientific reports2022
Disconnectomics to unravel the network underlying deficits of spatial exploration and attention.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brain Network Connectivity During Resting-State and a Visuospatial Task as a Biomarker for Spatial Neglect in Stroke Patients.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Trial
- The effects of age and delay task duration on attentional boost effect: evidence from behavior and fNIRS.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Surfice: visualizing neuroimaging meshes, tractography streamlines and connectomes.Nature methods · 2025Article
- Structural Disconnections Caused by White Matter Hyperintensities in Post-Stroke Spatial Neglect.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Virtual reality gameplay classification illustrates the multidimensionality of visuospatial neglect.Brain communications · 2024Article
- Mental rotation-related neural interactions between gender and cognitive strategy.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Spatial attention and exploration are related to a predominantly right hemispheric network structure. However, the areas of the brain involved and their exact role is still debated. Spatial neglect following right hemispheric stroke lesions has been frequently viewed as a model to study these processes in humans. Previous investigations on the anatomical basis on spatial neglect predominantly focused on focal brain damage and lesion-behaviour mapping analyses. This approach might not be suited to detect remote areas structurally spared but which might contribute to the behavioural deficit. In the present study of a sample of 203 right hemispheric stroke patients, we combined connectome lesion-symptom mapping with multivariate support vector regression to unravel the complex and disconnected network structure in spatial neglect. We delineated three central nodes that were extensively disconnected from other intrahemispheric areas, namely the right superior parietal lobule, the insula, and the temporal pole. Additionally, the analysis allocated central roles within this network to the inferior frontal gyrus (pars triangularis and opercularis), right middle temporal gyrus, right temporal pole and left and right orbitofrontal cortices, including interhemispheric disconnection. Our results suggest that these structures-although not necessarily directly damaged-might play a role within the network underlying spatial neglect in humans.
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.