Early visual processing in neglect patients: A study with steady state VEPs

Paola Angelelli, Maria De Luca, Donatella Spinelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Reliable steady-state visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were recorded in a group of 19 right brain-damaged patients with visuospatial hemineglect (Neglect), and two control groups: 15 left brain-damaged (RBD) patients and 12 right brain-damaged (RBD) patients without neglect. Moreover, VEPs were recorded in two rare cases of left brain damage and right visuospatial hemineglect. Stimuli were gratings phase-reversed at various temporal frequencies presented in the left and right visual field. In the Neglect group, VEPs to stimuli displayed in the left visual field (contralesional stimuli) had longer latencies. The delay was not present for the two control groups. As regards the VEP amplitudes, the Neglect group data showed a less distinctive pattern than in the case of latency. VEPs to stimuli contralateral to the lesion were smaller than those recorded for stimuli ipsilateral to the lesion in both Neglect and RBD groups. On the contrary, the VEP amplitudes for the two hemifields were comparable in the RBD group. In the case of left brain damage and neglect, VEPs to right visual field stimuli had longer latencies and lower amplitudes compared to the ipsilesional responses in both patients. Overall, the data support the view that, in most cases, early visual processing is not intact in the neglected hemifield.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1151-1157
Number of pages7
JournalNeuropsychologia
Volume34
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1996

Keywords

  • Amplitude
  • Brain-damaged patients
  • Evoked potentials
  • Latency
  • Neglect
  • Words: vision

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Behavioral Neuroscience
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Early visual processing in neglect patients: A study with steady state VEPs'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this