This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
To better understand neglect it is necessary to understand the inherent biases of normal subjects. We attempted to determine whether the biases present in normal subjects' line bisection are based on visual and representational biases or whether misbisection is simply due to perceptual/illusionary biases toward the narrower end of the stimulus. Normal subjects' bisected lines presented in four orientations: horizontal, vertical, and radial (both above and below eye level). Arrowheads were chosen as the stimulus placed at each end of the line. Misbisection toward the narrow end of the arrow would support the hypothesis that bisection bias is based on illusionary factors. However, in all four orientations subjects erred toward the wider end of the arrow. This suggests that the visual and representational biases that underlie normal subjects' upward bias on bisecting vertical and radial lines cannot be explained solely on the basis of a perceptual/illusionary bias.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
