F. Frank LeFever
flefever at ix.netcom.com
Sun Dec 13 22:41:16 EST 1998
In <36746EA2.300CB041 at pop3.concentric.net> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
>Ho, ho, ho :-)
>F. Frank LeFever wrote:
>> Stupidly, he assumed he knew what the term "unilateral neglect"
>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
>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?
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.).
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
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
>> and when his error was pointed out his "invincible ignorance"
>> his learning from the experience. "Unilateral neglect" (do a
>> search on it, please) is the term used in hundreds of
>> scientific/medical articles to refer to the complex phenomena of
>> lateralized inattention after focal neurological damage (e.g.
>> right-parietal stroke). It has NOTHING to do with "child abuse" or
>> "child neglect".
>=Only= if one reduces one's "living" to a "state" in which one cannot
>discern the correlations that Exist between "unilateral" and "one-way"
>> Ignorant is ignorant. God help the child that > depends on such a
>I Expect God =Is=. ken collins
>> F. LeFever
>> In <3671FE2D.F36D8CD at pop3.concentric.net>
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
>> >Oh yeah... what you say, too :-)
>> >But I stand on what I posted, Mr. Frank... Neglect is commonly
>> >in the dynamics of Child Abuse... then, as the Child matures, and
>> >generalized passive-active phase shift (sensory-template-dominant
>> >motor-template-dominant phase shift) gains ascendency (AoK, Ap5,
>> >Ap8), the Geometry of behavior "inverts", the "adult" replicates
>> >abusive dynamics... an entirely-within-the-control-of-Neuroscience
>> >Tragedy, Perpetuated, Needlessly... Sorrowfully. K. P. Collins
>> >F. Frank LeFever wrote:
>> >> Another particularly cruel (and stupid) joke from kkollins who
>> >> apparently knows nothing at all about unilateral neglect but
>> >> hesitate to reply on the basis of his own private fantasies.
>> >> n.b.: I have presented some of my own research on unilateral
>> >> meetings of the American Academy of Neurology (Boston,April
>> >> International Neuropsychological Society & Australian Society for
>> >> of Brain Impairment (Broadbeach, Australia, July 1991), and two
>> >> meetings of INS (San Diego, 1992; Durham, England, July 1992).
>> >> (1) Unilateral neglect has nothing to do with "sensory
>> >> studies (such as were fashionable 40 years ago); it is a
>> >> condition, usually arising from stroke, particularly right
>> >> stroke, and especially right parietal cortex (sometimes from
>> >> subcortical sites, relatively rarely from left-hemisphere sites).
>> >> (2) Unilateral neglect is not a sensory "deprivation" or "loss",
>> >> may better be described as "unilateral inattention". It may
>> >> more than one perceptual domain (e.g. visual, auditory,
>> >> but visual effects are most often studied. It must be
>> >> from hemispatial SENSORY loss such as a visual "field cut" or
>> >> hemianopsia.
>> >> (2) Italian researchers demonstrated 2-3 decades ago that
>> >> neglect can be shown in visual memory, for example ignoring
>> >> on the left when patients imagined a scene in their home towns;
>> >> asked to imagine facing the opposite direction the previously
>> >> buildings were "seen" and described, whereas the previously
>> >> buildings (now being on the left in this view) were ignored...
>> >> Lorenzo: what exactly would you like to say or ask about neglect?
>> >> F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>> >> New York Neuropsychology Group
>> >> In <36708334.CE871307 at pop3.concentric.net>
>> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
>> >> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >It's a a particularly-Cruel form of sensory-deprivation. (see my
>> >> earlier
>> >> >post of this evening). Cheers, Lorenzo, ken collins
>> >> >
>> >> >Lorenzo pia wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Would you like to speak with me about unilateral Neglect?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Lorenzo Pia
>> >> >> E-mail lorpia at tin.it
>> >> >> Web page http://space.tin.it/io/lorepia
>> >> >> http://members.wbs.net/homepages/l/o/l/lollo4.html
More information about the Neur-sci