4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Seeing trees but not the forest - Limited perception of large configurations in PD

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 56, 期 6, 页码 724-729

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.56.6.724

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01-NS26947, K08 NS02085] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To learn if Parkinson's disease (PD) is associated with a restricted attentional floodlight. Background: Different visual tasks may have different attentional requirements. Focused attention may be needed for some tasks; other tasks demand spatially distributed attention. Neglect after right cortical injury and dopamine depletion may limit:the area over which attention can be spread. Although subjects with PD have dopamine depletion and can perform poorly on tests of visuospatial function, it is unclear if their attentional floodlight is restricted. Methods: Eleven subjects with PD and 11 control subjects viewed different-sized letters on five printed stimulus sheets, 43 x 56 cm. On each sheet, four different large letters (14 cm(2)) were composed of four different medium-sized letters (2.5 cm(2)), which in turn were composed of four different small letters (0.4 cm(2)). Stimulus sheets were presented at 30- and 75-cm viewing distances. Subjects named all the letters they could see. Results: Subjects with PD named small- and medium-sized letters comparably to control subjects, but PD subjects named fewer large letters than control subjects (control = 65.68%, PD= 24.55%; group-by-letter-size interaction, p < 0.05). Subjects with PD who had undergone stereotactic pallidotomy named-more letters than prepallidotomy PD subjects (p = 0.05). Conclusions: PD may affect the patient's ability to perceive large spatial configurations. As global configurations in subjects may be perceived preferentially over local patterns, it is possible that DA depletion induces an aberrant perceptual-attentional bias, such that patients have a narrowed attentional floodlight.

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

4.7
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