↓ Skip to main content

Memory-guided saccade processing in visual form agnosia (patient DF)

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, November 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Memory-guided saccade processing in visual form agnosia (patient DF)
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, November 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00221-009-2074-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stéphanie Rossit, Larissa Szymanek, Stephen H. Butler, Monika Harvey

Abstract

According to Milner and Goodale's model (The visual brain in action, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006) areas in the ventral visual stream mediate visual perception and oV-line actions, whilst regions in the dorsal visual stream mediate the on-line visual control of action. Strong evidence for this model comes from a patient (DF), who suffers from visual form agnosia after bilateral damage to the ventro-lateral occipital region, sparing V1. It has been reported that she is normal in immediate reaching and grasping, yet severely impaired when asked to perform delayed actions. Here we investigated whether this dissociation would extend to saccade execution. Neurophysiological studies and TMS work in humans have shown that the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), on the right in particular (supposedly spared in DF), is involved in the control of memory-guided saccades. Surprisingly though, we found that, just as reported for reaching and grasping, DF's saccadic accuracy was much reduced in the memory compared to the stimulus-guided condition. These data support the idea of a tight coupling of eye and hand movements and further suggest that dorsal stream structures may not be sufficient to drive memory-guided saccadic performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 58 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 25%
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 52%
Neuroscience 7 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Engineering 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 8 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2012.
All research outputs
#18,306,425
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,474
of 3,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,029
of 93,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#17
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 93,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.