Letter | Published:

Non-spatial extinction following lesions of the parietal lobe in humans

Naturevolume 372pages357359 (1994) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

EFFICIENT behaviour in the visual environment requires selection between stimuli competing for control of action. Many current models of selection are spatial: relevant objects are chosen by attending to their locations1–3. The unilateral stimulus extinction observed following lesions of the parietal lobe provides evidence for spatial selection4. Such patients may identify a single stimulus presented in their contralesional field, but can fail to detect the same stimulus when a competing stimulus is shown simultaneously on the ipsilesional side5. Here we demonstrate that extinction need not be spatial in nature, but may be determined by characteristics of the objects to be selected. In two patients with parietal lobe lesions and poor spatial localization, pictures extinguished words and closed shapes extinguished open shapes. This object-based extinction indicates the existence of biases within non-spatial selection mechanisms which are independent of biases produced by spatial selection mechanisms. We suggest that selection of objects for action requires that the 'winners' produced by the independent competitive biases for selection are bound together within distinct neural areas concerned with object properties and space.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Posner, M. I. Quart. J. exp. Psychol. 32, 3–25 (1980).

  2. 2

    Moran, J. & Desimone, R. Science 229, 782–784 (1985).

  3. 3

    Mozer, M. C. & Behrmann, M. J. cog. Neurosci. 2, 96–123 (1989).

  4. 4

    Posner, M. I., Walker, J. A., Friedrich, F. J. & Rafal, R. D. J. Neurosci. 4, 1863–1874 (1984).

  5. 5

    Critchley, M. The Parietal Lobes (Edward Arnold, London, 1953).

  6. 6

    Balint, R. Monatsch. für Psychiat. Neurol. 25, 51–81.

  7. 7

    Coslett, B. & Saffran, E. Brain 114, 1523–1545 (1991).

  8. 8

    Humphreys, G. W. & Riddoch, M. J. in Attention and Performance XIV (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993).

  9. 9

    Egly, R., Driver, J. & Rafal, R. D. J. exp. Psychol.: General 123, 161–177 (1994).

  10. 10

    Driver, J. & Halligan, P. W. Cog. Neurosci. 8, 475–496 (1991).

  11. 11

    Kroll, J. F. & Potter, M. C. J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav. 23, 39–66 (1984).

  12. 12

    Humphreys, G. W. Quart. J. exp. Psychol. 33A, 17–31 (1981).

  13. 13

    Potter, M. C. & Faulconer, B. Nature 253, 437–438 (1975).

  14. 14

    Biederman, I. Psychol. Rev. 94, 115–147 (1987).

  15. 15

    Ungerleider, L. G. & Mishkin, M. in Analysis of Visual Behavior (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982).

  16. 16

    Duncan, J. Perception 22, 1261–1270 (1993).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Science Research Centre, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    • Glyn W. Humphreys
    • , Cristina Romani
    • , Andrew Olson
    •  & M. Jane Riddoch
  2. MRC Applied Psychology Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 2EF, UK

    • John Duncan

Authors

  1. Search for Glyn W. Humphreys in:

  2. Search for Cristina Romani in:

  3. Search for Andrew Olson in:

  4. Search for M. Jane Riddoch in:

  5. Search for John Duncan in:

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Issue Date

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/372357a0

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.