Endpoints and viewpoints on spatial neglect

In this issue of the Journal of Neuropsychology, Abe and Ishiai (2022) report an experiment designed to probe the subjective experience of line bisection in neglect. A re‐analysis of their data can also offer insights into how best to characterise neglect performance for this and other tasks. We show that sensitive measures of neglect can be obtained by quantifying the difference in the influence (or ‘weighting’) that each endpoint has on the response. The right endpoint is dramatically more influential than the left in people with neglect performing line bisection and endpoint reproduction tasks. This supports the view that neglect may limit the ability to simultaneously represent two locations, so that the response is determined primarily with respect to the right endpoint. We also discuss Abe and Ishiai's conclusion that bisection responses in neglect are accompanied by the subjective experience of a complete line extending equally to either side of the chosen midpoint

Face matching and self-insight:A registered report investigating individual differences in metacognitive sensitivity, efficiency, and bias

Deciding whether two face photographs depict the same person or not can be a challenging task, and there are substantial individual differences in face matching ability. Far less is known about differences in metacognitive ability; that is, how well people can estimate the quality of their own face matching judgements. The purpose of this Registered Report was to determine the relationship between first-order performance in a face matching task, and three metacognitive measures: metacognitive sensitivity (the information exploited by metacognition), metacognitive efficiency (the quality of metacognitive processing itself), and metacognitive bias (the overall tendency towards high or low confidence). Participants completed a 200-trial unfamiliar face matching task, providing a second-order (metacognitive) confidence rating after each first-order (cognitive) response. Cognitive performance and metacognitive sensitivity showed a substantial positive association (rs = .60), suggesting that they were based on overlapping information, with poorer performers having lower quality information available. Once these differences in the information available to metacognition were accounted for, the quality of metacognitive processing itself (metacognitive efficiency) did not vary systematically with cognitive performance (rs = .00). Moreover, poor performers were not less or more confident overall than good performers, as cognitive performance and metacognitive bias did not correlate significantly (rs = .11). These findings allow us to move beyond consideration of group-level insight and inform regarding individual differences in cognitive and metacognitive abilities

Righteous Adam, Sinister Eve

Supplementary Materials (Appendix 1-3) for "Righteous Adam, Sinister Eve", by Sergio Della Sala & Robert D McIntosh

Time-dependent inhibition of covert shifts of attention

Buonocore A, Dietze N, McIntosh RD. Time-dependent inhibition of covert shifts of attention. Experimental brain research. 2021.Visual transients can interrupt overt orienting by abolishing the execution of a planned eye movement due about 90ms later, a phenomenon known as saccadic inhibition (SI). It is not known if the same inhibitory process might influence covert orienting in the absence of saccades, and consequently alter visual perception. In Experiment 1 (n=14), we measured orientation discrimination during a covert orienting task in which an uninformative exogenous visual cue preceded the onset of an oriented probe by 140-290ms. In half of the trials, the onset of the probe was accompanied by a brief irrelevant flash, a visual transient that would normally induce SI. We report a time-dependent inhibition of covert orienting in which the irrelevant flash impaired orientation discrimination accuracy when the probe followed the cue by 190 and 240ms. The interference was more pronounced when the cue was incongruent with the probe location, suggesting an impact on the reorienting component of the attentional shift. In Experiment 2 (n=12), we tested whether the inhibitory effect of the flash could occur within an earlier time range, or only within the later, reorienting range. We presented probes at congruent cue locations in a time window between 50 and 200ms. Similar to Experiment 1, discrimination performance was altered at 200ms after the cue. We suggest that covert attention may be susceptible to similar inhibitory mechanisms that generate SI, especially in later stages of attentional shifting (>200ms after a cue), typically associated with reorienting

Did you see it? A Python tool for psychophysical assessment of the human blind spot

The blind spot is a region in the temporal monocular visual field in humans, which corresponds to a physiological scotoma within the nasal hemi-retina. This region has no photoreceptors, so is insensitive to visual stimulation. There is no corresponding perceptual scotoma because the visual stimulation is “filled-in” by the visual system. Investigations of visual perception in and around the blind spot allow us to investigate this filling-in process. However, because the location and size of the blind spot are individually variable, experimenters must first map the blind spot in every observer. We present an open-source tool, which runs in Psychopy software, to estimate the location and size of the blind spot psychophysically. The tool will ideally be used with an Eyelink eye-tracker (SR Research), but it can also run in standalone mode. Here, we explain the rationale for the tool and demonstrate its validity in normally-sighted observers. We develop a detailed map of the blind spot in one observer. Then, in a group of 12 observers, we propose a more efficient, pragmatic method to define a “safe zone” within the blind spot, for which the experimenter can be fully confident that visual stimuli will not be seen. Links are provided to this open-source tool and a user manual

On line bisection:Validity and reliability of online measures of pseudoneglect

This study assessed pseudoneglect using line bisection and perceptual landmark tasks in two matched online sessions. Line bisection bias was characterised by the traditional measure of Directional Bisection Error (DBE), and by Endpoint Weightings Bias (EWB), derived from an ‘endpoint weightings’ analysis, made possible by the independent manipulation of left and right endpoints. EWB is proposed to index the relative attentional allocation to the two ends of the line. The expected leftward bias (pseudoneglect) was found, with larger effect sizes for EWB (d = -0.34 in both sessions) than for DBE (-0.22 in Session 1 and -0.14 in Session 2). Although EWB was slightly less reliable than DBE, it was more sensitive to pseudoneglect, and the endpoint weightings method has further advantages, including the option of an additional measure of non-lateralised attention. A substantial proportion of participants had difficulty following the instructions for the landmark task, which highlights the need for clear instructions and performance checks for this task. This study shows that line bisection can be used to measure pseudoneglect online, and provides grounds to suggest that the task should routinely include the independent manipulation of left and right endpoints, so that an endpoint weightings analysis can be performed

Weight and see: Line bisection in neglect reliably measures the allocation of attention, but not the perception of length

Line bisection has long been a routine test for unilateral neglect, along with a range of tests requiring cancellation, copying or drawing. However, several studies have reported that line bisection, as classically administered, correlates relatively poorly with the other tests of neglect, to the extent that some authors have questioned its status as a valid test of neglect. In this article, we re-examine this issue, employing a novel method for administering and analysing line bisection proposed by McIntosh et al. (2005). We report that the measure of attentional bias yielded by this new method (EWB) correlates significantly more highly with cancellation, copying and drawing measures than the classical line bisection error measure in a sample of 50 right-brain damaged patients. Furthermore when EWB was combined with a second measure that emerges from the new analysis (EWS), even higher correlations were obtained. A Principal Components Analysis found that EWB loaded highly on a major factor representing neglect asymmetry, while EWS loaded on a second factor which we propose may measure overall attentional investment. Finally, we found that tests of horizontal length and size perception were related poorly to other measures of neglect in our group. We conclude that this novel approach to interpreting line bisection behaviour provides a promising way forward for understanding the nature of neglect

On two 10th order mock theta identities

We give short proofs of conjectural identities due to Gordon and McIntosh involving two 10th order mock theta functions.Comment: 5 pages, to appear in the Ramanujan Journa