The disengagement deficit after right-hemisphere damage: Distinct roles of lateral frontal and parietal damage.

An influential model of spatial attention postulates three main attention-orienting mechanisms: disengagement, shifting, and engagement. Early research linked disengagement deficits with superior parietal damage, regardless of hemisphere or presence of spatial neglect. Subsequent studies supported the involvement of more ventral parietal regions, especially in the right hemisphere, and linked spatial neglect to deficient disengagement from ipsilateral cues. However, previous lesion studies faced serious limitations, such as small sample sizes and the lack of brain-injured controls without neglect. Additionally, some studies employed symbolic cues or used long cue-target intervals, which may fail to reveal impaired disengagement. We here used a machine-learning approach to conduct lesion-symptom mapping (LSM) on 89 patients with focal cerebral lesions to the left (LH) or right (RH) cerebral hemisphere. A group of 54 healthy participants served as controls. The paradigm used to uncover disengagement deficits employed non-predictive cues presented in the visual periphery and at short cue-target intervals, targeting exogenous attention. The main factors of interest were group (healthy participants, LH, RH), target position (left, right hemifield) and cue validity (valid, invalid). LSM-analyses were performed on two indices: the validity effect, computed as the absolute difference between reaction times (RTs) following invalid compared to valid cues, and the disengagement deficit, determined by the difference between contralesional and ipsilesional validity effects. While LH patients showed general slowing of RTs to contralesional targets, only RH patients exhibited a disengagement deficit from ipsilesional cues. LSM associated the validity effect with a right lateral frontal cluster, which additionally affected subcortical white matter of the right arcuate fasciculus, the corticothalamic pathway, and the superior longitudinal fasciculus. In contrast, the disengagement deficit was related to damage involving the right temporoparietal junction. Thus, our results support the crucial role of right inferior parietal and posterior temporal regions for attentional disengagement, but also emphasize the importance of lateral frontal regions, for the reorienting of attention.

Anatomical predictors of mental rotation with bodily and non-bodily stimuli: A lesion-symptom study.

Mental rotation (MR) is widely regarded as a quintessential example of an embodied cognitive process. This viewpoint stems from the functional parallels between MR and the physical rotation of tangible objects, as well as participants' inclination to employ motor-based strategies when tackling MR tasks involving bodily stimuli. These commonalities imply that MR may depend on brain regions crucial for the planning and execution of motor programs. However, there is disagreement regarding the anatomy of MR between findings from functional imaging and lesion studies involving brain-injured patients. The former indicate the involvement of the right-hemispheric parietal cortex, while the latter underscore the significance of posterior areas in the left hemisphere. In this study, we aimed to discern the neural underpinnings of MR using lesion-symptom mapping (LSM) for both bodily (hands) and non-bodily (letters) stimuli. Behavioral results from the two MR tasks revealed impaired MR of bodily stimuli in patients with left hemisphere damage. LSM results pinpointed the left primary motor and somatosensory cortices, along with the superior parietal lobule, as the anatomical substrates of MR for both bodily and non-bodily stimuli. Furthermore, damage to the left angular gyrus, supramarginal gyrus, supplementary motor area, and retrosplenial cortex was associated with MR of non-bodily stimuli. These findings support the causal involvement of the left hemisphere in MR and underscore the existence of a common anatomical substrate in brain regions pertinent to motor planning and execution.

Task relevance and negative reward modulate the disengagement deficit of patients with spatial neglect.

Though motivational value is a recognized trigger of approach and avoidance behavior, less is known about the potential of reward to capture attention. We here explored whether positive or negative reward modulates the characteristic deficit of patients with left spatial neglect to disengage attention from an ipsilesional distracter. We built our study on recent observations showing that the disengagement deficit is exaggerated for distracters with target-defining features, indicating that task-relevance captures attention. Patients with left neglect and matched healthy controls were asked to react to lateralized, colored targets preceded by a peripheral cue. Crucially, the cue either possessed the color of the target and was thus task-relevant, or was followed by a positive, negative, or neutral symbolic reward. Neglect patients only exhibited a disengagement deficit when cues were task-relevant or were followed by a negative reward. This finding indicates that attentional selection is driven by task-relevance and negative reward, possibly through interactions between limbic and attention networks.