Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anatomy of Spatial Attention: Insights from Perfusion Imaging and Hemispatial Neglect in Acute Stroke

Open access
Hillis, Argye E., Newhart, Melissa, Heidler, Jennifer, Barker, Peter B., Herskovits, Edward H., Degaonkar, Mahaveer·2005·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The site of lesion responsible for left hemispatial neglect after stroke has been intensely debated recently. Some studies provide evidence that right angular lesions are most likely to cause left neglect, whereas others indicate that right superior temporal lesions are most likely to cause neglect. We examine two potential accounts of the conflicting results: (1) neglect could result from cortical dysfunction beyond the structural lesion in some studies; and (2) different forms of neglect with separate neural correlates have been included in different proportions in separate studies. To evaluate these proposals, we studied 50 patients with acute right subcortical infarcts using tests of hemispatial neglect and magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted and perfusion-weighted imaging performed within 48 h of onset of symptoms. Left “allocentric” neglect (errors on the left sides of individual stimuli, regardless of location with respect to the viewer) was most strongly associated with hypoperfusion of right superior temporal gyrus (Fisher's exact test; p < 0.0001), whereas left “egocentric” neglect (errors on the left of the viewer) was most strongly associated with hypoperfusion of the right angular gyrus ( p < 0.0001). Patients without cortical hypoperfusion showed no hemispatial neglect. Because the patients did not have cortical infarcts, our data show that neglect can be caused by hypoperfused dysfunctional tissue not detectable by structural magnetic resonance imaging. Moreover, different forms of neglect were associated with different sites of cortical hypoperfusion. Results help explain conflicting results in the literature and contribute to the understanding of spatial attention and representation in the human brain.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.4468-04.2005

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 57 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Hillis, A. E., Newhart, M., Heidler, J., Barker, P. B., Herskovits, E. H., & Degaonkar, M.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2005-03-23
Volume
25
Issue
12
Pages
3161-3167
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2059768491
Cited by
323
References
57
FWCI
9.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Anatomy of Spatial Attention: Insights from Perfusion Imaging and Hemispatial Neglect in Acute Stroke. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.4468-04.2005
The paper
Hillis, A. E., Newhart, M., Heidler, J., Barker, P. B., Herskovits, E. H., & Degaonkar, M. (2005). Anatomy of Spatial Attention: Insights from Perfusion Imaging and Hemispatial Neglect in Acute Stroke. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.4468-04.2005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.