Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T00:16:52.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are psychophysical functions derived from line bisection reliable?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2003

Pierce Christopher A. ,
Jewell George  and
Mennemeier Mark
Pierce Christopher A.*
Affiliation:
Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Neuropsychology, Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan
Jewell George
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
Mennemeier Mark
Affiliation:
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
*
Reprint requests to: Christopher A. Pierce, Ph.D., Neuropsychological Consultants, LLC, 1919 14th Street, Suite 714, Boulder CO 80302. E-mail: dogearcp@netscape.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Psychophysical functions are used to characterize both normal perception and altered perception among patients with neglect, yet the reliability of these functions is rarely examined. The present study examined two-week, test-retest reliability for power functions derived from line bisection data among 58 normal, young and old, male and female subjects. Power function exponents and constants were, at best, moderately reliable over time. The size of the exponent tended to decrease at retesting. Reliability coefficients varied by age and gender; they were highly significant for young men, marginally significant for older men, and non-significant for women. Race influenced reliability as coefficients were significant for Caucasian subjects but not for African American subjects. Age and gender effects in this study parallel those in the literature on pseudoneglect, and they may reflect hemispheric differences in visuo-spatial processing, magnitude estimation, or both. (JINS, 2003, 9, 72–78.)

Keywords

Crossover effectPseudoneglectNeglectPower function

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 72 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adair, J.C., Chatterjee, A., Schwartz, R.L., & Heilman, K.M. (1998). Ipsilateral neglect: Reversal of bias of exaggerated cross-over phenomenon. Cortex, 34, 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, M.L. & Moss, M.B. (1988). Geriatric neuropsychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. (1996). A mathematical model of line bisection behaviour in neglect. Brain, 119, 841–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, J. (1970). Psychophysical analysis of visual space. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Barton, J.S., Behrmann, M., & Black, S. (1998). Ocular search during line bisection: The effects of hemi-neglect and hemianopia. Brain, 121, 1117–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisiach, E., Rusconi, M.L., Peretti, V.A., & Vallar, G. (1994). Challenging current accounts of unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1431–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, D. & Heilman, K.M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, A., Dajani, B.M., & Gage, R.J. (1994a). Psychophysical constraints on behavior in unilateral spatial neglect. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 7, 267–274.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A., Mennemeier, M., & Heilman, K.M. (1994b). The psychophysical power law and unilateral spatial neglect. Brain and Cognition, 25, 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, A. (1995). Cross-over, completion and confabulation in unilateral spatial neglect. Brain, 118, 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, A., Thompson, K.A., & Ricci, R. (1998). Weigh(t)ing for awareness. Brain and Cognition, 37, 477–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chokron, S., Bartolomeo, P., Perenin, M.T., Helft, G., & Imbert, M. (1998). Scanning direction and line bisection: A study of normal subjects and unilateral neglect patients with opposite reading habits. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, D.V. (1973). Sequential dependencies and regression in psychophysical judgments. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzon, M. & Hugdahl, K. (1986). Visual half-field presentations of incongruent color words: Effect of gender and handedness. Cortex, 22, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhardstein, P., Peterson, M.A., & Rapcsak, S.Z. (1998). Age-related hemispheric asymmetry in object discrimination. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, G. & Shelley, C. (1981). Does the right hemisphere age more rapidly than the left? Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 3, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabowska, A., Herman, A., Nowicka, A., Szatkowska, I., & Szelag, E. (1994). Individual differences in the functional asymmetry of the human brain. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 54, 155–162.Google Scholar
Halligan, P.W. & Marshall, J.C. (1988). How long is a piece of string? A study of line bisection in a case of visual neglect. Cortex, 24, 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Watson, R.T., & Valenstein, E. (1985). Neglect and related disorders. In K.M. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (pp. 243–293). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hollingworth, H.L. (1909). The indifference point. In H. L. Hollingworth (Ed.), The inaccuracy of movement (pp. 21–39). New York: The Science Press.Google Scholar
Ishiai, S., Furukawa, T., & Tsukagoshi, H. (1989). Visuospatial processes of line bisection and the mechanisms underlying unilateral spatial neglect. Brain, 112, 1485–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewell, G. & McCourt, M.E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. (1970). The cerebral basis of lateral asymmetries in attention. Acta Psychologica, 33, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. (1993). Orientation bias model of unilateral neglect: Evidence from attentional gradients within hemispace. In I. H. Robertson & J. C. Marshal (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: Clinical and experimental studies (pp. 63–86). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marshall, J.C. & Halligan, P.W. (1989). When right goes left: An investigation of line bisection in a case of visual neglect. Cortex, 25, 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCourt, M. (2001). Performance consistency of normal observers in forced-choice tachistoscopic visual line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1065–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCourt, M. & Olafson, C. (1997). Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: Psychometric and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 35, 717–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mefferd, R.B., Wieland, B.A., & Dufilho, L.P. (1969). Systematic alterations of the apparent centers of lines. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 28, 803–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Rapcsak, S.Z., Dillon, M., & Vezey, E. (1998). A search for the optimal stimulus. Brain and Cognition, 37, 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Vezey, E., Lamar, M., & Jewell, G. (2002). Crossover is not a consequence of neglect. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, E.S. (1922). On the variations in personal equation and the correlation of successive judgements. Biometrika, 14, 23–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulton, E.C. (1968). The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulton, E.C. (1979). Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 777–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarisbrick, D.J., Tweedy, J.R., & Kuslansky, G. (1987). Hand preference and performance effects on line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 25, 695–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J.C. & Guirao, M. (1964). Individual loudness functions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 36, 2210–2213.Google Scholar
Stevens, S.S. & Galanter, E.H. (1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S.S. (1975a). The psychophysical law. In G. Stevens (Ed.), Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual neural and social prospects (pp. 1–36). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Stevens, S.S. (1975b). Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tegner, R. & Levander, M. (1991). The influence of stimulus properties on visual neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 54, 882–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrillo, R.T. (1982). Absolute estimation of line length as a function of sex. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19, 334–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voyer, D. & Bryden, M.P. (1990). Gender, level of spatial ability, and lateralization of mental rotation. Brain and Cognition, 13, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar