Cited by 476Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionVestibular and auditory disordersHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience

The subcortical anatomy of human spatial neglect: putamen, caudate nucleus and pulvinar

Karnath, Hans‐Otto, Himmelbach, Marc, Rorden, Chris·2002·Brain

Abstract

Various studies have documented that right hemispheric lesions restricted to the basal ganglia or to the thalamus may evoke spatial neglect. However, for methodological reasons, the exact anatomical correlate of spatial neglect within these two subcortical structures still remained uncertain. The present study identified these locations by comparing the anatomy of subcortical lesions to the basal ganglia or thalamus between neglect and control patients. Analysis revealed that the putamen, the pulvinar and, to a smaller degree, the caudate nucleus are the subcortical structures typically associated with spatial neglect in humans. All these structures have direct anatomical connections to the superior temporal gyrus (STG), which recently has been identified as the neural correlate of spatial neglect in the human cortex. Therefore, it is assumed that the right putamen, caudate nucleus, pulvinar and STG form a coherent corticosubcortical anatomical network in the genesis of spatial neglect in humans.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awf032

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karnath, H., Himmelbach, M., & Rorden, C.
Affiliations
University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Karnath, Hans‐Otto
Venue
Brain
Published
2002-02-01
Volume
125
Issue
2
Pages
350-360
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2170181995
Cited by
476
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 25
FWCI
11.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Keywords
hemispatial neglect, putamen, caudate nucleus, pulvinar, basal ganglia, thalamus, superior temporal gyrus, right hemisphere damage, subcortical lesions, anatomical correlates
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Caudate Nucleus, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Perceptual Disorders, Putamen, Spatial Behavior, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Stroke, Pulvinar

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