ArticleScientific reports2025
Space- and object-based attention in patients with a single hemisphere following childhood resection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The neural processes underlying attentional processing are typically lateralized in adults, with spatial attention associated with the right hemisphere (RH) and object-based attention with the left hemisphere (LH). Using a modified two-rectangle attention paradigm, we compared the lateralization profiles of individuals with childhood hemispherectomy (either LH or RH) and age-matched, typically developing controls. Although patients exhibited slower reaction times (RTs) compared to controls, both groups benefited from valid attentional cueing. However, patients experienced significantly higher costs for invalid trials-reflected by larger RT differences between validly and invalidly cued targets. Notably, controls showed no significant RT cost differences between invalidly cued locations on cued versus uncued objects. By contrast, patients, irrespective of which hemisphere was resected, exhibited greater RT costs for targets on uncued versus cued objects, suggesting greater difficulty shifting attention across objects. We explore potential explanations for this group difference and the lack of difference between patients with LH or RH resection. These findings enhance our understanding of spatial- and object-based attention in typical development and reveal how significant neural injury affects the development of attentional systems in the LH and RH.
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.