Advertisement

Spatial representation and updating: Evidence from neuropsychological investigations

  • Marlene Behrmann
  • John Philbeck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2205)

Abstract

How spatial information is represented and updated over time and over changes in the position of the stimulus and/or obrserver is considered in the context of a population of patients who have impairment in spatial perception. We present data both from our own research with patients suffering from hemispatial neglect as well as from studies in the literature. Taken together, these studies suggest that spatial information is coded in more than one spatial frame of reference simultaneously and that the choice of reference frame depends on the demands of the tasks. Once the stimulus is located, however, the patients are able to update the position of the stimulus dynamically when walking or when undergoing passive rotation. The insights obtained from this neuropsychological population provides converging evidence for the psychological and neural mechanisms which mediate spatial representation and dovetail well with existing single unit recording and functional imaging data.

Keywords

Spatial representation Spatial updating Spatial reference frames Neuropsychology Hemispatial neglect 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Aglioti S, Smania N, Peru A. Frames of reference for mapping tactile stimuli in brain-damaged patients. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1998; 11: 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Andersen R A, Essick G K, Siegel R M. Encoding of spatial location by posterior parietal neurons. Science 1985; 230: 456–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Andersen R A, Snyder L H, Bradley D C, Xing J. Multimodal representation of space in the posterior parietal cortex and its use in planning movements. Annual Review of Neuroscience 1997; 20: 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Arguin M, Bub D. Evidence for an independent stimulus-centered spatial reference frame from a case of visual hemineglect. Cortex 1993; 29: 349–357.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Behrmann M, Ghiselli-Crippa T, Di Matteo I. Impaired initiation but not execution of eye movements in patients with hemispatial neglect. Behavioral Neurology 2001; in press.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Berhmann M, Ghiselli-Crippa T, Sweeney J, Dimatteo I, Kass R. Mechanisms underlying spatial representation revealed through studies of hemispatial neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience in press.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Berhmann M, Moscovich M. Object-centered neglect in patients with unilateral neglect: Effects of left-right coordinates of objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1994; 6: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Berhmann M, Tipper S P. Attention accesses multiple reference frames: Evidence from neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1999; 25: 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Berhmann M, Tipper S P. Object-based attentional mechanisms: Evidence from patients with unilateral neglect. In: Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing. Umilta C Moscovitch M, editors. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994. p. 351–375.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Beschin N, Cubelli R, Della Sala S, Spinazzola L. Left of what? The role of egocentric coordinates in neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1997; 63: 483–489.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Bisiach E. The spatial features of unilateral neglect. In: Parietal lobe contributions to orientation in 3-D space, Karnath HO Thier P, editors. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 1997. p. 465–495.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Bisiach E, Capitani E, Porta E. Two basic properties of space representation in the brain: Evidence from unilateral neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1985; 48: 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Brotchie P R, Andersen R A, Snyder L H, Goodman S J. Head position signals used by parietal neurons to encode locations of visual stimuli. Nature 1995; 375: 232–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Caminiti R, Johnson P B, Galli C, Ferraina S, Burnod Y. Making arm movements in different parts of space: the premotor and motor cortical representations of a co-ordinate system for reaching to visual targets. Journal of Neuroscience 1991; 11: 1182–1197.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Caramazza A, Hillis A E. Levels of representation, co-ordinate frames and unilateral neglect. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1990; 13: 391–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Caramazza A, Hillis A E. Spatial representation of words in the brain implied by studies of a unilateral neglect patient. Nature 1990; 346: 267–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Chokron S, Imbert M. Egocentric reference and asymmetric perception of space. Neuropsychologia 1993; 31: 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Colby C L, Goldberg M E. Spatial representations. In: Handbook of Neuropsychology, 4., Behrmann M, editor. Elsevier Science: North Holland, 2001. p. 45–65.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Corlett J. The role of vision in the planning and guidance of locomotion through the environment. In: Vision and motor control, Proteau L Elliott D, editors. North Holland: Elsevier Science, 1992. p. 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Driver J. Egocentric and object-based visual neglect. In: The hippocampal and parietal foundations of spatial behavior, Burgess N, Jeffery KJ O’Keefe J, editors. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999, p. 67–89.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Driver J, Baylis G C, Goodrich S, Rafal R D. Axis-based neglect of visual shape. Neuropsychologia 1994; 32: 1353–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Driver J, Halligan P W. Can visual neglect operate in object-centered coordinates: An affirmative study. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1991; 8: 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Driver J, Pouget A. Object-centered visual neglect, or relative egocentric neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2000; 12: 542–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Driver J, Spence C. Attention and the crossmodal construction of space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1998; 2: 254–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Duhamel J R, Colby C L, Goldberg M E. The updating of representations of visual space in parietal cortex by intended eye movements. Science 1992; 225: 90–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Duhamel J R, Goldberg M E, Fitzgibbons E J, Sirigu A, Grafman J. Saccadic dysmetria in a patient with a right frontoparietal lesion: The importance of corollary discharge for accurate spatial behavior. Brain 1992; 115: 1387–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Elliott D. The influence of walking speed and prior practice on locomotor distance estimation. Journal of Motor Behavior 1987; 19: 476–485.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Farah M J, Brunn J L, Wong A B, Wallace M, Carpenter P. Frames of reference for the allocation of spatial attention: Evidence from the neglect syndrome. Neuropsychologia 1990; 28: 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Farnè A, Ponti F, Ládavas E. In search of biased egocentric reference frames in neglect. Neuropsychologia 1998; 36: 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Farrell M J, Robertson I H. The automatic updating of egocentric spatial relationships and its impairment due to right posterior cortical lesions. Neuropsychologia 2000; 38: 585–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Grabowecky M, Robertson L C, Treisman A. Preattentive processes guide visual search: Evidence from patients with unilateral visual neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1993; 5: 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Graziano M, Gross C G. Multiple pathways for processing visual space. In: Attention and Performance XVI, Inui T McClelland JL, editors. Bradford Book, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1996. p. 181–207.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Graziano M S A, Yap G S, Gross C G. Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. Science 1994; 266: 1054–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Haywood M, Coltheart M. Neglect dyslexia and the early stages of visual word recognition. Neurocase 2000; 6: 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Heide W, Blankenburg M, Zimmerman E, Kompf D. Cortical control of double-step saccades–Implications for spatial orientation. Annals of Neurology 1995; 38: 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Hillis A E, Rapp B. Unilateral spatial neglect in dissociable frames of reference: a comment on Farah, Brunn, Wong, Wallace and Carpenter. Neuropsychologia 1998; 36: 1257–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Humphreys G W, Riddoch M J. Attention to within-object and between-object spatial representations: Multiple sites for visual selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1994; 11: 207–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Humphreys G W, Riddoch M J. Separate coding of space within and between perceptual objects: Evidence from unilateral visual neglect. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1994; in press.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Israel I, Rivaud S, Gaymard B, Berthoz A, Pierrot-Deseillgny P. Cortical control of vestibular-guided saccades in man. Brain 1995; 118: 1169–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    Karnath H O. Neural encoding of space in egocentric coordinates. In: Parietal lobe contributions to orientation in 3D space, Their P Karnath HO, editors. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 1997. p. 497–520.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Karnath H O, Christ K, Hartje W. Decrease of contralateral neglect by neck muscle vibration and spatial orientation of the trunk midline. Brain 1993; 116: 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Karnath H O, Fetter M, Dichgans J. Ocular exploration of space as a function of neck proprioceptive and vestibular input–observations in normal subjects and patients with spatial neglect after parietal lesions. Experimental Brain Research 1996; 109: 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Karnath H O, Niemeier M. Task-dependent differences in the exploratory behaviour of patients with spatial neglect. submitted manuscript 2001;.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    Karnath H O, Schenkel P, Fisher B. Trunk orientation as the determining factor of the contralateral deficit in the neglect syndrome and as the physical anchor of the internal representation of body orientation in space. Brain 1991; 114: 1997–2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Kooistra C A, Heilman K M. Hemispatial visual inattention masquerading as hemianopia. Neurology 1989; 39: 1125–1127.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Loomis J M, Da Silva J A, Fujita N, Fukusima S S. Visual space perception and visually directed action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1992; 18: 906–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Mennemeier M, Chatterjee A, Heilman K M. A comparison of the influences of body and environment-centered reference frames on neglect. Brain 1994; 117: 1013–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Mozer M C. Frames of reference in unilateral neglect and visual perception: A computational perspective, submitted manuscript 2001;.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Nadeau S E, Heilman K M. Gaze dependent hemianopia without hemispatial neglect. Neurology 1991; 41: 1244–1250.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    Olson C. Object-based vision and attention in primates. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2001; 11: 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    Olson C, Gettner S N. Brain representation of object-centered space. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 1996; 6: 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    Olson C R, Gettner S N. Object-centered directional selectivity in the macaque supplementary eye field. Nature 1995; 269: 985–988.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    Pavlovskaya M, Glass I, Soroker N, Blum B, Groswasser Z. Coordinate frame for pattern recognition in unilateral spatial neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1997; 9: 824–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    Philbeck J W, Behrmann M, Loomis J. Spatial updating during self-rotations after right posterior parietal lesions. in Annual meeting of the psychonomic Society. 1999. Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    Philbeck J W, Loomis J M. Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1997; 23: 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    Pouget A, Deneve S, Sejnowski T J. Frames of reference in hemineglect: a computational approach. In: Neural modeling of brain disorders; Progress in Brain Research, Reggia J, Ruppin E Glanzman D, editors. North-Holland: Elsevier, 1999.Google Scholar
  57. [57]
    Pouget A, Driver J. Relating unilateral neglect to the neural coding of space. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2000; 10: 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    Pouget A, Sejnowski T J. Spatial transformations in the parietal cortex using basis functions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1997; 9: 222–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Riddoch M J, Humphreys G W, Luckhurst L, Burroughs E, Bateman A. “Paradoxical neglect”: Spatial representations, hemisphere-specific activation and spatial cueing. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1995; 12: 569–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Rieser J J, Ashmead D H, Talor C R, Youngquist G A. Visual perception and the guidance of locomotion without vision to previously seen targets. Perception 1990; 19: 675–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    Rizzolatti G, Berti A, Gallese V. Spatial neglect: Neurophysiological bases, cortical circuits and theories. In: Handbook of Neuropsychology, 1., Boller F Grafman J, editors. Elsevier Science: North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2000. p. 503–538.Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Steenhuis R E, Goodale M A. The effects of time memory for spatial location exist? Journal of Motor Behavior 1988; 20: 399–415.Google Scholar
  63. [63]
    Subbiah I, Caramazza A. Stimulus-centered neglect in reading and object recognition. Neurocase 2000; 6: 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Thomson J A. Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1983; 9: 427–443.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    Tipper S P, Berhmann M. Object-centred not scene-based visual neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1996; 22: 1261–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    Tropper J, Mellvill Jones G, Bloomberg J, Fadallah H. Vestibular perceptual deficits in patients with parietal lobe lesions: A preliminary study. Acta Otolaryngologica (suppl.), 1991; 481: 528–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    Vuilleumier P, Valenza N, Mayer E, Perrig S, Landis T. To see better when looking more to the right: Effects of gaze direction and frames of spatial coordinates in unilateral neglect. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 1999; 5: 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    Walker R, Findlay J M. Eye movement control in spatial-and obect-based neglect. In: Parietal lobe contributions to orientation in 3D space, Thier P Karnath HO, editors. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 1997. p. 201–218.Google Scholar
  69. [69]
    Walker R, Findlay J M, Young A W, Lincoln N B. Saccadic eye movements in object-based neglect. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1996; 13: 569–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    Walker R, Young A W. Object-based neglect: An investigation of the contributions of eye movements and perceptual completion. Cortex 1996; 32: 279–295.Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    Wardak C, Olivier E, Duhamel J-R. Neglect in monkeys: effect of permanent and reversible lesions. In: The Cognitive and Neural Bases of Neglect, Karnath HO, Milner AD Vallar G, editors. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2001. p.Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    Young A W, Hellawell D J, Welch J. Neglect and visual recognition. Brain 1991; 115: 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marlene Behrmann
    • 1
  • John Philbeck
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations