Cited by 120Visual perception and processing mechanismsSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ‘SECOND’ VISUAL SYSTEM TO DIRECTED VISUAL ATTENTION IN MAN

ZIHL, J., CRAMON, D.VON·1979·Brain

Abstract

The visual functions of a patient suffering from a brain lesion incorporating the left n. pulvinar was examined in order to assess the contribution of this structure to human vision. With the exception of the following abnormalities visual functions were normal. First, there was a decrease in the critical flicker frequency in the periphery (but not in the parafoveal region) of the right visual hemifield, that is, that contralateral to the pulvinar lesion. However, the second and most striking characteristic was--as shown by presenting visual stimuli bilaterally and simultaneously-a 'neglect' for the periphery of this contralateral visual half-field. This 'neglect' was a function of (a) position in the visual field (eccentricity), (b) stimulus properties (size and luminance), (c) temporal properties (length of presentation and interstimulus interval). In addition to this reduced capacity to detect stimuli appearing in the periphery of the right visual hemifield, there was also prolonged latency of visually evoked saccadic eye movements and a paucity of spontaneous eye movements directed towards the right visual hemifield. These results are interpreted in terms of a contribution of the n. pulvinar to the detection of light stimuli presented in the periphery of the visual field, and support the view that the tectopulvinar extrastriate visual pathway plays an important role in the control of visual attention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/102.4.835

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Damage to the pulvinar in humans can result in visual hemi-neglect, deficits in feature binding, or focal attention.

    “Damage to the pulvinar in humans can result in visual hemi-neglect [44,45], deficits in feature binding [46] or focal attention [47].”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ZIHL, J., & CRAMON, D. V.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry (DE)
Venue
Brain
Published
1979
Volume
102
Issue
4
Pages
835-856
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2046451366
Cited by
120
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
pulvinar, visual attention, visual field neglect, critical flicker frequency, saccades, spontaneous eye movements, visual detection, brain lesions
MeSH terms
Attention, Dominance, Cerebral, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Motor Skills, Parietal Lobe, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Thalamic Nuclei, Visual Fields, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review