Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Difference in P300 response between hemi-field visual stimulation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neurological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schenkenberg T, Bradford DC, Ajax ET (1980) Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurologic impairment. Neurology 30:509–517

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferro JM, Kertesz A, Black SE (1987) Subcortical neglect: quantitation, anatomy, and recovery. Neurology 37:1487–1492

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 64:50–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciçek M, Gitelman D, Hurley RS, Nobre A, Mesulam M (2007) Anatomical physiology of spatial extinction. Cereb Cortex 17:2892–2898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):424–435

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Karnath HO, Dieterich M (2006) Spatial neglect—a vestibular disorder? Brain 129(Pt 2):293–305

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartolomeo P, Thiebaut de Schotten M, Doricchi F (2007) Left unilateral neglect as a disconnection syndrome. Cereb Cortex 17:2479–2490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bruyer R (1986) Lateral differences in visual processing: relative vs exclusive hemispheric specialization. Hum Neurobiol 5:83–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Leventhal G (1988) Cerebral dominance and attentional bias in word recognition. Percept Mot Skills 66:791–800

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McAuliffe SP, Knowlton BJ (2001) Hemispheric differences in object identification. Brain Cogn 45:119–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zwaan RA, Yaxley RH (2004) Lateralization of object-shape information in semantic processing. Cognition 94:B35–B43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brecelj J, Kakigi R, Koyama S, Hoshiyama M (1998) Visual evoked magnetic responses to central and peripheral stimulation: simultaneous VEP recordings. Brain Topogr 10:227–237

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 872:77–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 6:9–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Polich J (2007) Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol 118:2128–2148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Isreal JB, Chesney GL, Wickens CD, Donchin E (1980) P300 and tracking difficulty: evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance. Psychophysiology 17:259–273

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 221:1080–1082

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kok A (2001) On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology 38:557–577

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 95:434–443

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 20:6612–6618

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. McCarthy G, Donchin E (1981) A metric for thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science 211:77–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 98:3081–3094

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kansaku K, Hanakawa T, Wu T, Hallett M (2004) A shared neural network for simple reaction time. Neuroimage 22:904–911

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Heilman KM, Valenstein E (1979) Mechanisms underlying hemispatial neglect. Ann Neurol 5:166–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Karnath HO, Niemeier M (2002) Task-dependent differences in the exploratory behaviour of patients with spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia 40:1577–1585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Coulthard E, Parton A, Husain M (2007) The modular architecture of the neglect syndrome: Implications for action control in visual neglect. Neuropsychologia 45:1982–1984

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kustukake-cho, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

    Megumi Suzuki

  2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Nagoya University, 1-1-20 Daiko-minami, Higashi-ku, Nagoya, 461-8673, Japan

    Megumi Suzuki & Minoru Hoshiyama

Authors
  1. Megumi Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Minoru Hoshiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minoru Hoshiyama.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suzuki, M., Hoshiyama, M. Difference in P300 response between hemi-field visual stimulation. Neurol Sci 32, 603–608 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-011-0544-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-011-0544-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation