4.5 Article

Non-spatial neglect for the mental number line

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 49, 期 9, 页码 2570-2583

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.05.005

关键词

Numbers; Space; Attention; Working memory; SNARC; Neuropsychology

资金

  1. Belgian federal government [P6/29]
  2. Ghent University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several psychophysical investigations, expanding the classical introspective observations by Galton, have suggested that the mental representation of numbers takes the form of a number line along which magnitude is positioned in ascending order according to reading habits, i.e. from left to right in Western cultures. In keeping with the evidence, pathological rightward deviations in the bisection of number intervals due to right brain damage are generally interpreted as originating from a purely spatial-attentional deficit in the processing of the left side of number intervals. However, consistent double dissociations between defective processing of the left side of physical and mental number space have called into question the universality of this interpretation. Recent evidence suggests a link between rightward deviations in number space and defective memory for both spatial and non-spatial sequences of items. Here we describe the case of a left brain-damaged patient exhibiting right-sided neglect for extrapersonal and representational space, and left-sided neglect on the mental number line. Accurate neuropsychological examination revealed that the apparent left-sided neglect in the bisection of number intervals had a purely non-spatial origin and was based on mnemonic difficulties for the initial items of verbal sequences presented visually at an identical spatial position. These findings show that effective position-based verbal working memory might be crucial for numerical tasks that are usually considered to involve purely spatial representation of numerical magnitudes. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据