Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Neurological Sciences
Published in: Neurological Sciences 4/2011

01-08-2011 | Original Article

Difference in P300 response between hemi-field visual stimulation

Authors: Megumi Suzuki, Minoru Hoshiyama

Published in: Neurological Sciences | Issue 4/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

We investigated differences in the cognitive/attention process following visual stimulation of the left and right hemi-visual fields. Visual P300 was recorded in 31 healthy right-handed subjects following target and non-target stimuli presented randomly in both visual fields. Counting and reaction time (RT) tasks using the left and right hands were performed. The P300 amplitude was significantly smaller in the RT session using the left hand. The amplitude was larger following target stimulation in the left hemi-visual field in the RT sessions using both the left and right hands. The P300 latency did not change in each stimulus condition and session, but the RT was longer for the target in the right hemi-visual field in the RT session using the left hand. We showed asymmetry of P300 response following each hemi-visual field in healthy subjects, and visual stimuli in the left hemi-visual field were dominantly processed.
Literature
1.
Schenkenberg T, Bradford DC, Ajax ET (1980) Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurologic impairment. Neurology 30:509–517PubMed
2.
Ferro JM, Kertesz A, Black SE (1987) Subcortical neglect: quantitation, anatomy, and recovery. Neurology 37:1487–1492PubMed
3.
Kleinman JT, Newhart M, Davis C, Heidler-Gary J, Gottesman RF, Hillis AE (2007) Right hemispatial neglect: frequency and characterization following acute left hemisphere stroke. Brain Cogn 64:50–59PubMedCrossRef
4.
Ciçek M, Gitelman D, Hurley RS, Nobre A, Mesulam M (2007) Anatomical physiology of spatial extinction. Cereb Cortex 17:2892–2898PubMedCrossRef
5.
Malhotra P, Jäger HR, Parton A, Greenwood R, Playford ED, Brown MM, Driver J, Husain M (2005) Spatial working memory capacity in unilateral neglect. Brain 128(Pt 2):424–435PubMed
6.
Karnath HO, Dieterich M (2006) Spatial neglect—a vestibular disorder? Brain 129(Pt 2):293–305PubMed
7.
Bartolomeo P, Thiebaut de Schotten M, Doricchi F (2007) Left unilateral neglect as a disconnection syndrome. Cereb Cortex 17:2479–2490PubMedCrossRef
8.
Bruyer R (1986) Lateral differences in visual processing: relative vs exclusive hemispheric specialization. Hum Neurobiol 5:83–86PubMed
9.
Leventhal G (1988) Cerebral dominance and attentional bias in word recognition. Percept Mot Skills 66:791–800PubMed
10.
McAuliffe SP, Knowlton BJ (2001) Hemispheric differences in object identification. Brain Cogn 45:119–128PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zwaan RA, Yaxley RH (2004) Lateralization of object-shape information in semantic processing. Cognition 94:B35–B43PubMedCrossRef
12.
Brecelj J, Kakigi R, Koyama S, Hoshiyama M (1998) Visual evoked magnetic responses to central and peripheral stimulation: simultaneous VEP recordings. Brain Topogr 10:227–237PubMed
13.
Nakamura M, Kakigi R, Okusa T, Hoshiyama M, Watanabe K (2000) Effects of check size on pattern reversal visual evoked magnetic field and potential. Brain Res 872:77–86PubMedCrossRef
14.
Nakamura A, Kakigi R, Hoshiyama M, Koyama S, Kitamura Y, Shimojo M (1997) Visual evoked cortical magnetic fields to pattern reversal stimulation. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 6:9–22PubMedCrossRef
15.
Polich J (2007) Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol 118:2128–2148PubMedCrossRef
16.
Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedCrossRef
17.
Nuwer MR, Comi G, Emerson R, Fuglsang-Frederikson A, Guérit JM, Hinrichs H, Ikeda A, Luccas FJC, Rappelsberger P (1999) IFCN standards for digital recording of clinical EEG. Electroencephalogr Clin Neruophysiol suppl 52:11–14
18.
Isreal JB, Chesney GL, Wickens CD, Donchin E (1980) P300 and tracking difficulty: evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance. Psychophysiology 17:259–273PubMedCrossRef
19.
Wickens C, Kramer A, Vanasse L, Donchin E (1983) Performance of concurrent tasks: a psychophysiological analysis of the reciprocity of information-processing resources. Science 221:1080–1082PubMedCrossRef
20.
Kok A (2001) On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology 38:557–577PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ebmeier KP, Steele JD, MacKenzie DM, O’Carroll RE, Kydd RR, Glabus MF, Blackwood DH, Rugg MD, Goodwin GM (1995) Cognitive brain potentials and regional cerebral blood flow equivalents during two- and three-sound auditory “oddball tasks”. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 95:434–443PubMedCrossRef
22.
Kirino E, Belger A, Goldman-Rakic P, McCarthy G (2000) Prefrontal activation evoked by infrequent target and novel stimuli in a visual target detection task: an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci 20:6612–6618PubMed
23.
McCarthy G, Donchin E (1981) A metric for thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science 211:77–80PubMedCrossRef
24.
Macaluso E, Frith CD, Driver J (2007) Delay activity and sensory-motor translation during planned eye or hand movements to visual or tactile targets. J Neurophysiol 98:3081–3094PubMedCrossRef
25.
Kansaku K, Hanakawa T, Wu T, Hallett M (2004) A shared neural network for simple reaction time. Neuroimage 22:904–911PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Karnath HO, Niemeier M (2002) Task-dependent differences in the exploratory behaviour of patients with spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia 40:1577–1585PubMedCrossRef
28.
Coulthard E, Parton A, Husain M (2007) The modular architecture of the neglect syndrome: Implications for action control in visual neglect. Neuropsychologia 45:1982–1984CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Difference in P300 response between hemi-field visual stimulation
Authors
Megumi Suzuki
Minoru Hoshiyama
Publication date
01-08-2011
Publisher
Springer Milan
Published in
Neurological Sciences / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 1590-1874
Electronic ISSN: 1590-3478
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-011-0544-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

Neurological Sciences 4/2011 Go to the issue

Original Article

Acute medical complications in patients admitted to a stroke unit and safe transfer to rehabilitation

Book Review

Davide Schiffer: Attraverso il Microscopio

Case Report

Relapsed spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma associated with aspirin and clopidogrel

Case Report

Isolated progressive cognitive impairment and depression in a patient with neuroradiological features suggestive of multiple sclerosis

Letter to the Editor

A study of six point mutation analysis of LRRK2 gene in Chinese mainland patients with Parkinson’s disease

Case Report

Microscopic polyangiitis presenting with peripheral and central neurological manifestations