Jump to content

Talk:Visual extinction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wangtron (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 30 November 2009 (→‎Potential Revisions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMedicine Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good start, work on expanding the page over the next month before our deadline NeuroJoe (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Revisions

In the second sentence of your introductory paragraph, you write that patients with visual extinction can identify single objects presented to them briefly. How briefly, and is the brevity of object presentation important in characterizing visual extinction? If possible, specify a time scale both for presentation of multiple stimuli and single stimuli. You should also give specific examples of the “simple exercises” useful in treating symptoms of visual extinction in the “Prognosis” section. The phrase “simple exercises” is quite vague and does not enhance understanding of the disorder. Bergaa7 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In order for your article to be informative, you should link your information to other wikipedia articles like you started to do in the introduction. This will give the reader a better understanding of the information that you're presenting. I'm a little confused about something you mention in the causes section. You say that "symptoms often seen in conjuction with visual extinction are reduced hand strength, neglect...". What do you mean by neglect? You might want to clarify this in your article. Also, you mention that a delay in reaction time is observed in many patients but this information isn't cited. Where did you find this information? Farnhach (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the “Causes” section I think you mean itself instead of “its self.” Also, when reading the “Prognosis” section, I was wondering what kinds of exercises can be done to improve or maintain function. I saw later that it was explained in the “Treatment” section. Maybe combine/condense these sections. In the “Society & Culture” section I might move the statement about fatigue and habituation to somewhere earlier in the article like the “Causes” section. In the “Research and Future” section I would maybe try to work everything into a cohesive paragraph and fill it out more, explaining something such as “contralesional event,” which is somewhat opaque. (JLB1117 (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]


I am wondering if your prognosis section should be included in our treament section because the paragraph is very general and seems to fit under the treatment section well. Either that or I was wondering if you should keep the paragraph at all because the exercises you mention in the prognosis section are then described in detail in the treatment section. It would seem a little redundant if you kept the prognosis section. If you decide to keep the prognosis section something needs to be added to it. Someone below said it might be beneficial to explain the reasons why is can never be completely healed. I have also found an article that you guys may find useful. It is about the effects of item repetition on extinction. It is from the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jocn.1993.5.4.453?cookieSet=1. Overall though good job. Strong article. (Widrickm (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Cool topic and interestingly written. However, I'm curious to know specifically which parts of the brain are involved with visual extinction. You guys write that unilateral brain damage to cerebral hemispheres is the cause, and we know that the occipital lobe plays a central role in visual processing in the brain. The article doesn't mention nay specific lobes/parts of the brain except for the parietal lobe, but even then it was a short note on its specific role. Please expand on how the parietal lobe plays a role in visual extinction. Also, Pubmed and Google seem to have some articles relating visual extinction with drug abuse. I'm not sure if their use of "extinction" in relation to "visual stimuli" is necessarily classified as "visual extinction" but a few articles do discuss how drugs such as cocaine or benzodiazepine. http://ppw.kuleuven.be/labexppsy/johanw/articles/Boucart%20et%20al%20PsPha%202000.pdf or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19879927?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1 are two such articles. It would be cool too if this article had a "See also" section with links to related Wiki topics such as ADD, brain damage, or parietal lobe. Otherwise, cool beans! Good job overall. (Wangtron (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

Information in your history section and causes section seems to be contradictory. I would clarify whether visual extinction occurs mainly in the right hemisphere or in both equally. I found a paper that not only addresses this issue but also explores the possibility that visual extinction is due to restricted attention capacity. Given your claim in the society and culture section that, "Visual Extinction is often mistaken for attentional deficit," I suggest you read this article and strongly consider adding its findings. “What exactly is extinguished in unilateral visual extinction? Neurophysiological evidence” C. A. Marzi et all. Pat Bolan (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In the 'causes' section, you mention unilateral brain damage in the right or left hemisphere as the source of visual extinction. I would mention some of the specific brain structures that have been found to be associated with disease such as the subcortical basal ganglia and the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). Under the 'treatments' section, the sentence stating that forty hours of 'retraining' was necessary for successful treatment needs clarification. When you say 'retraining', to what training are you referring to? Also, what would be classified as a 'successful' treatment? After all, the 'prognosis' section states that the damaged area of the brain attributed to the visual extinction can never be completely healed.

Additionally, a good portion of your 'society & culture' section would be more appropriately categorized under a 'symptoms' heading.

CafeDelMar (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an expansion of the above comment, I would also suggest referencing specific injuries or disorders that cause visual extinction. One example I started reading about was the inactivation of the superior colliculus. You can read about it at the following link: [[1]]. Can you also try to explain why you state, under the prognosis category, that "the damaged area can never be completely healed." Are the mechanisms behind the hinderance of the healing known?

Philades (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC) While researching information for your topic I found many results concerning "spatial attention" http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/83/5/3062. Is there a relation between this condition and your topic? If so, what is it? Also, what is its relation to spatial neglect. KrystalMarquis (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading over the source given, "Visual extinction and cortical connectivity in human vision", it seems that you could elaborate on the findings of this article, in particular, the proposed cause of visual extinction given in this article as well as adding to the second paragraph under history. [[2]] The same author produced another article elaborating on the conjectures made in the first paper and it mentions how their proposed cause still holds up under these new conditions. Perhaps mentioning the visual cortex and how it is unaffected by these injuries and that visual extinction is dependent upon parietal damage alone. [[3]] Aceintheh0l3 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good job thus far, this is an interesting topic of research.
  • First, grammatically I think it would be helpful if you reread your article out loud. I found some inconsistencies specifically in reference to verb tense agreements (I believe journals/articles are written in present tense) and plural vs. singular tense agreement.
  • When you say: "Research done by Pavlovskaya, Sagi , Soroker and Ring"-what specific research are you referring to. Include the experiment(s), trials and controls used, etc...
  • I suggest making symptoms and causes two separate sections and elaborate on each.
  • Is vision loss rapid, what is the time scale (months/years/days?)
  • Does the vision extinction progress any specific way (affecting color then object determination...etc)?
  • Expand on the future research section citing specific articles/studies/experiments.
  • I think the article provides good general knowledge of the condition but you have to get more specific and focus on the details of each section you chose to highlight.
  • One article I found while I researched the topic online is titled: "Visuomotor links in awareness: evidence from extinction" by Raffaella Ricci. It is not online, but you can request the article on the Interlibrary Loan service. I've done it for you just in case you don't see this in time, I'll let you know when I receive it. Judging from the abstract and reviews, I think this is a useful experiment to incorporate in your article. Also, I am finding that patients with Visual Extinction are used in studies relating to perception and motor performance as found in another article titled "Implicitly Evoked Actions Modulate Visual Selection: Evidence from Parietal Extinction" by Giuseppe di Pellegrino; here is the link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4GXV66S-K&_user=521319&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000026018&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=521319&md5=80caccfb318719c7c728fb6411d4132f. I hope this is useful to you as you continue to work on your article! Good Luck! Fdemsas (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]