SPATIAL NEGLECT AND ATTENTION NETWORKS

By Maurizio Corbetta, Gordon L. Shulman. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 2011

1,255 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Unilateral spatial neglect is a common neurological syndrome following predominantly right hemisphere injuries to ventral fronto-parietal cortex. We propose that neglect reflects deficits in the coding of saliency, control of spatial attention, and representation within an egocentric frame of reference, in conjunction with non-spatial deficits of reorienting, target detection, and arousal/vigilance. In contrast to theories that link spatial neglect to structural damage of specific brain regions, we argue that neglect is better explained by the physiological dysfunction of distributed cortical networks. The ventral lesions in right parietal, temporal, and frontal cortex that cause neglect directly impair non-spatial functions and hypoactivate the right hemisphere, inducing abnormalities in task-evoked activity and functional connectivity of a dorsal frontal-parietal network that controls spatial attention. The anatomy and right hemisphere dominance of neglect follows from the anatomy and laterality of the ventral regions that interact with the dorsal attention network.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Pharmacology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1fbd8e4095c4aec0ff9affff8ee90e0b8faed3ac

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Pharmacology

Citations in the corpus

Multisensory Stimulation in Stroke Rehabilitation (2012, background): “This and other studies indicate that neglect is better explained by the dysfunction of distributed cortical networks for the control of attention than by structure damage of specific brain regions (Corbetta and Shulman, 2011; Urbanski et al., 2011).”
Towards a Universal Taxonomy of Macro-scale Functional Human Brain Networks (2019, neutral): “…the relative remoteness of its regions from motor and perceptual inputs in terms of topographical organization (Margulies (Seeley et al. 2007). b Functional connectivity of di ﬀ erent nodes of the ventral attention network (Yeo et al. 2011). c Ventral attention network (Corbetta and Shulman 2011).”
Controllability of structural brain networks (2014, positive): “Such a theoretical prediction is supported by evidence that attentional control integrates different cognitive functions 35,36 , and that disconnections of attentional networks is accompanied by extensive cognitive deﬁcits 37,38 .”
Capturing the spatiotemporal dynamics of self-generated, task-initiated thoughts with EEG and fMRI (2019, neutral): “The subjective experience of perceiving a scene, recognizing a face, hearing a sound or reflecting on the experience itself presents a complex interplay between memory, attention and consciousness (Corbetta and Shulman, 2011; Tononi et al., 2016).”
Salience network integrity predicts default mode network function after traumatic brain injury (2012, background): “However, the lesions studied almost always result in a degree of damage to large white matter tracts, and the contribution of this damage to cognitive impairment has been difficult to differentiate from that of damage to the overlying cortex (50).”
Why use a connectivity-based approach to study stroke and recovery of function? (2012, positive): “Again in neglect, a recent analysis based in part on functional and structural connectivity results argues that different behavioral deficits in neglect emerge from damage to different networks for attention (Corbetta and Shulman, 2011).”