UNILATERAL NEGLECT

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Sun Dec 13 23:07:49 EST 1998


F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> [...]

> kkollins retorts:
> 
> >But you might want to explain why it was that you were wasting your
> >"time" in the 1990s replicating stuff that was already in the
> textbooks in the 1970s :-)
> 
> Another bit of evidence (as if more were needed) that kkollins hasn't a
> clue when it comes to scientific investigation.  What "stuff" did I
> replicate?  (not that there is harm in replication; to the contrary,
> there should be more efforts at replication)  Simply a report that
> unilateral neglect exists?

Replication, such as yours, is rampant, because folks "just" don't Know
the Neuroanatomy. [gotta "sign" it K. P. Collins]

> Thgat is just a starting point, and I am but one of dozens of
> researchers who have approached unilateral neglect from various angles
> in an effort to understand the phenomenon (or phenomena) better--trying
> to determine what precise neural mechanisms are critical for various
> aspects of neglect, what correlates it has (cf. line bisection studies,
> cf. motoric vs. sensory aspects, etc., etc.).

Try Studying the Neuroanatomy.

> My own small contribution was to devise a new way of measuring it,
> which had several advantages: it allowed tracing the scan path through
> a visual array without thousands of dollars of eye-tracking equipment,
> and it allowed detection of "fine" and "gross" neglect in one operation
> (the former being neglect of small details in an object which was not
> neglected, i.e. initial letter of a word, the latter being neglect of
> the left half of an entire page).
> 
> It also allowed me to compare neglect of near vs. far stimuli in a way
> which overcomes some of the problems of previous procedures aimed at
> comparing near vs. far neglect.
> 
> It offers an alternative approach to the question of whether neglect
> might be due to inability to disengage attention from an increasingly
> more salient stimulus array on the right (cf. Mark VW et al., Neurology
> 1988;38:1225-1211, comment in LeFever FF, Neurology 1989;39:1006).
> 
> One unexpected dividend was the discovery of a systematic difference
> between scan paths of normal subjects and scan paths of patients with
> neglect--even those whose neglect was seemingly overcome or compensated
> for.
> 
> F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
> New York Neuropsychology Group

Do you want me to obtain a copy of your paper, and show you what I mean?
K. P. Collins



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list