ライフサイエンスコーパス: hemifield

1 cluster of three contiguous points within a hemifield).

2 atified by VF location (superior vs inferior hemifield).

3 he diagonally opposite location in the lower hemifield.

4 lation of hMST also affected the ipsilateral hemifield.

5 an those preferring motion toward the cooled hemifield.

6 curately than stimuli appearing in the right hemifield.

7 of the alpha parameter of TVA, regardless of hemifield.

8 eld and ignore all stimuli in the unattended hemifield.

9 sed attentional allocation towards the right hemifield.

10 t information, especially in the blind right hemifield.

11 n does the auditory stream from the opposite hemifield.

12 for orientations presented in the untrained hemifield.

13 but only when subjects attended to the left hemifield.

14 centric positions in the contralateral sound hemifield.

15 th hemispheres code the contralateral visual hemifield.

16 , also maps of the ipsilateral (left) visual hemifield.

17 bout all of space, including the ipsilateral hemifield.

18 a representation of the contralateral visual hemifield.

19 e four remaining locations were in the right hemifield.

20 presentation to both the left and the right hemifield.

21 ented in either the left or the right visual hemifield.

22 cted by the PFC lesion or the normal control hemifield.

23 itatory receptive field in the contralateral hemifield.

24 c representation of the contralateral visual hemifield.

25 t to stimuli presented in the contralesional hemifield.

26 ut not at a control location in the opposite hemifield.

27 receptive fields in the opposite, untrained hemifield.

28 esponded best to sounds in the contralateral hemifield.

29 en waveforms from the upper versus the lower hemifield.

30 n unattended location in the opposite visual hemifield.

31 ide entirely within the left or right visual hemifield.

32 fear-conditioned faces in his blind (right) hemifield.

33 amiliar objects were presented in one visual hemifield.

34 rk objects located within, the contralateral hemifield.

35 across the two hemifields or within the same hemifield.

36 n competing characters appeared in the other hemifield.

37 ented without competing stimuli in the other hemifield.

38 ndant targets in the same or opposite visual hemifield.

39 e or with a distractor light in the opposite hemifield.

40 hrough the full representation of the visual hemifield.

41 or stimuli were equally likely in the uncued hemifield.

42 attended to the stimuli in the contralateral hemifield.

43 emselves completely ineffective in the blind hemifield.

44 ted for 150 msec in the right or left visual hemifield.

45 cortex contralateral to the affected visual hemifield.

46 gnificant reduction compared with the intact hemifield.

47 l representation within the remaining normal hemifield.

48 to visual stimuli in the previously "blind" hemifield.

49 x for stimuli leading from the contralateral hemifield.

50 ntly represents stimuli in the contralateral hemifield.

51 erior hemifield, both hemifields, or neither hemifield.

52 versus one population by stimulating in one hemifield.

53 requiring covert attention to either visual hemifield.

54 oring the distractors presented on the other hemifield.

55 15 degrees intervals throughout the frontal hemifield.

56 each with a receptive field serving only one hemifield.

57 tions, with overlap primarily at the central hemifield.

58 suppress task-irrelevant stimuli in the left hemifield.

59 on of detection performance in the entrained hemifield.

60 ese were presented predominantly in the left hemifield.

61 isual hemifields than within the same visual hemifield.

62 vel processes were not constrained by visual hemifield.

63 -threshold targets specific to the entrained hemifield.

64 the hemisphere associated with the abnormal hemifield.

65 or neutral images into the temporal or nasal hemifield.

66 en both targets were tracked within the same hemifield.

67 g in an attentional bias to the right visual hemifield.

68 y when the context was limited to the intact hemifield.

69 resence of a distracter in the contralateral hemifield.

70 location of attended targets in both visual hemifields.

71 al) and nontarget objects in opposite visual hemifields.

72 rd masking when targets are presented across hemifields.

73 ed either in the same hemifield or different hemifields.

74 distribution of attention across both visual hemifields.

75 ating a convergence of information from both hemifields.

76 hyperopia in both the nasal and the temporal hemifields.

77 r, typically producing myopia in the treated hemifields.

78 by visual bars alternating between opposite hemifields.

79 the HVF, whereas the reverse was true of 17 hemifields.

80 luster 4 (6 GON) showed deep defects in both hemifields.

81 involved remapping of visual signals across hemifields.

82 ched visual fields that extend onto opposite hemifields.

83 een hemifields as well as within each of the hemifields.

84 entirely restricted to the subjects' "blind" hemifields.

85 stimuli presented in his affected and normal hemifields.

86 e of the horizontal slit, also across visual hemifields.

87 two targets presented simultaneously in both hemifields.

88 cal representations of left and right visual hemifields.

89 ails had to be integrated across both visual hemifields.

90 visual processing when it is divided across hemifields.

91 seamlessly tracked when they traverse visual hemifields?

92 Of the eyes with normal 24-2 hemifields, 16% were classified as abnormal when the 10-

93 ribed as directionally selective (423, 63%), hemifield (220, 32%), or non-directional (32, 5%).

94 to the four stimulus positions in the nasal hemifield (-4 degrees , -12 degrees , -20 degrees , and

95 There appeared to be as many abnormal 10-2 hemifields (53%) as abnormal 24-2 hemifields (59%).

96 ormal 10-2 hemifields (53%) as abnormal 24-2 hemifields (59%).

97 Of the abnormal 10-2 hemifields, 68%, 8%, and 25% were arcuatelike, widesprea

98 ifields tested (50 patients x two eyes x two hemifields), 75 showed significant clusters on the HVF,

99 nset and offset are presented to the 'blind' hemifield, a hemianopic subject with damage largely rest

100 ared with their counterparts in the inferior hemifield across the severity spectrum.

101 the horizontal meridian of the contralateral hemifield activated cortex along the V2V3 border, wherea

102 For snakes only, we observed a temporal hemifield advantage, which indicates facilitation by the

103 ng colored distracter gratings in either the hemifield affected by the PFC lesion or the normal contr

104 The intact hemifield also allows a comparison with normal vision.

105 eversal was generally lost, and asymmetry of hemifield amplitudes grew.

106 bited when the object enters the ipsilateral hemifield and display an additional excitation after the

107 to respond to target stimuli in the attended hemifield and ignore all stimuli in the unattended hemif

108 they allocated attention to a target in one hemifield and ignored a distracter on the opposite side.

109 ely increased and the number of neurons with hemifield and non-directional selectivity curves decreas

110 imuli appeared in either the intact or blind hemifield and simple responses were given with either th

111 orderly representations of the entire visual hemifield and therefore represent distinct areas.

112 ts reported both click location (one or both hemifields) and the number of clicks they heard (one or

113 subjects with rhythmic stimuli in one visual hemifield, and arhythmic stimuli in the other.

114 est conditions: superior hemifield, inferior hemifield, and central (5 degrees radius) targets using

115 justment (MOA); superior hemifield, inferior hemifield, and central targets using a modified binary s

116 be affected more severely than the inferior hemifield, and the differences between them increased wi

117 e HVF and mfVEP results agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were ab

118 tern indicated that V3 represents the visual hemifield as a mirror image of V2.

119 ents and HC perceived optic flow in the left hemifield as faster than in the right hemifield, with a

120 Two subjects depicted phosphenes in the same hemifield as the expected locations.

121 which two clicks were perceived in the same hemifield as the leading click, providing a dissociation

122 The 10-2 VF was abnormal in nearly as many hemifields as was the 24-2 VF, including some with norma

123 bility to detect two similar targets between hemifields as well as within each of the hemifields.

124 F defect in the inferior hemifield, superior hemifield, both hemifields, or neither hemifield.

125 ped maps of the contralateral (right) visual hemifield but, surprisingly, also maps of the ipsilatera

126 ual orientation can be restored to the blind hemifield by transection of the commissure of the superi

127 In this way, visual stimuli in one hemifield can be selected as targets for SC-mediated ori

128 Finally, detection performance in the upper hemifield changed on a rapid timescale, improving with s

129 he representation of space follows closely a hemifield code and suggest that enhanced posterior-dorsa

130 s predominantly represented by a distributed hemifield code rather than by a local spatial topography

131 or regions to segregate space similarly to a hemifield code representation.

132 For between-hemifield comparisons, all regions in the superior hemif

133 Likewise, for within-hemifield comparisons, MDs of the regions gradually wors

134 e efficient target tracking, and that within-hemifield competition limits the ability to modulate mul

135 localized sound sources in the contralateral hemifield, consistent with lesion studies, and did so wi

136 ects persisted even when all the flow in the hemifield containing the probe was removed (experiment 2

137 a spatial component (target selection in the hemifield contralateral or ipsilateral to the inactivati

138 ipetal than the centrifugal direction in the hemifield contralateral to the MT/V5 lesion.

139 ains (1) normal cells with RFs in the visual hemifield contralateral to the recording site (RFc), (2)

140 onses to a target that appears in the visual hemifield contralateral to the responding limb (crossed)

141 Here we manipulated which visual hemifield corresponded to the location of the stimulated

142 timulation in the anatomically corresponding hemifield could boost responses in contralateral visual

143 In glaucomatous eyes with single-hemifield damage, the RBF is significantly reduced in th

144 Gabor patch moving away from the deactivated hemifield decreased prestimulus and stimulus-driven acti

145 s, and cluster 3 (10 GON) held deep inferior hemifield defects only or in combination with lesser sup

146 patients had glaucomatous-like asymmetrical hemifield defects with abnormal Glaucoma Hemifield Test

147 2 (26 GON) exhibited primarily deep superior hemifield defects, and cluster 3 (10 GON) held deep infe

148 r VF loss were dominated chiefly by superior hemifield defects.

149 l expressions presented in his blind (right) hemifield despite an extensive lesion of the correspondi

150 dlPFC neurons with selectivity for opposite hemifields directly compete with each other for target s

151 of a separate representation of the inferior hemifield for colour in more dorsolateral regions of the

152 The IPFS in the inferior hemifield had a similar pattern, but was slightly farthe

153 longitudinal analyses, IPFS in the superior hemifield had an arcuate pattern initially that later de

154 eld comparisons, all regions in the superior hemifield had worse MDs compared with their counterparts

155 Of the 52 disagreements, 35 hemifields had a significant cluster on the mfVEP, but n

156 dules were primarily located in the inferior hemifield (half) of the iris, regardless of its color (P

157 tures that are potentially relevant for both hemifields (i.e., coherent motion but also collinear sha

158 inctive, continuous map of the contralateral hemifield immediately anterior to area V3, including a u

159 ient to visual stimuli in the contralesional hemifield immediately following surgical recovery.

160 phase were found to be modulated by attended hemifield, implying that the bilateral nature of the res

161 e 10-2 test and were present in the superior hemifield in 10 of the 11 eyes.

162 despite crossing the midline into the blind hemifield in 11 of 12 eyes.

163 s as a complete representation of the visual hemifield in a heavily myelinated wedge of cortex just r

164 percepts derived for the normal and affected hemifield in a human hemianope with visual stimuli of wh

165 ry of visual orienting behavior in the blind hemifield in any of 23 animals.

166 esentation of the ipsilateral (right) visual hemifield in right parietal cortex.

167 entation of sensory inputs (the right visual hemifield in the left hemisphere and vice versa) is a fu

168 test stimuli were located in the same visual hemifield in the no-shift task, and on opposite sides in

169 ographic representation of the contralateral hemifield in the ventral subdivision of the LIP (LIPv) i

170 produced by flicker in complementary visual hemifields--in the same eye or across eyes, but never by

171 t all tested locations, even in the opposite hemifield, indicating much broader spatial tuning of the

172 biases toward representing the contralateral hemifield, indicating that the underlying neural archite

173 her attention was divided across or within a hemifield, indicating that these higher-level processes

174 participants tracked two targets in separate hemifields, indicating that attention can modulate early

175 oth the ipsilateral and contralateral visual hemifields, indicative of larger receptive fields.

176 perception of illusory contours spanning the hemifields induced by Kanizsa figures.

177 btained under four test conditions: superior hemifield, inferior hemifield, and central (5 degrees ra

178 using a method of adjustment (MOA); superior hemifield, inferior hemifield, and central targets using

179 execution of movements to the contralateral hemifield irrespective of both input modality and the ty

180 locations, suggesting that the entire visual hemifield is represented in modules of corresponding dim

181 urden between the superior and inferior iris hemifields is most likely due to the sunlight-shielding

182 cated at any moment to locations in opposite hemifields is uncorrelated, suggesting that animals allo

183 Inferior hemifield IVF impacted vision-specific role difficulties

184 analysis showed that the MD of the superior hemifield IVF was associated only with near activities (

185 0.21; P < .001) while the MD of the inferior hemifield IVF was associated with general vision (beta =

186 ction Questionnaire and superior or inferior hemifield IVF was determined using multivariable linear

187 Superior hemifield IVF was strongly associated with difficulty wi

188 400, but only with presentation to the right hemifield (left hemisphere).

189 nd not only on its severity, but also on its hemifield location.

190 the probability of presentation in the upper hemifield locations (to 80%) dramatically improved detec

191 tecting targets at lower, relative to upper, hemifield locations.

192 measurements support a model that includes a hemifield map, hV4, adjacent to the central field repres

193 e multiple target representations within the hemifield maps of the early visual cortex.

194 ization and stimulus responsivity of two new hemifield maps, VO-1 and VO-2, within this cluster.

195 en stimuli were also present in the opposite hemifield, mirroring the extinction phenomenon commonly

196 hey are related to the binding of the visual hemifields (monocular or interocular) into a coherent pe

197 However, within each hemifield, neural information about successfully remembe

198 d residual visual performance in the "blind" hemifield of a subject with unilateral damage to the pri

199 ncy-tagging' by flickering a grating in each hemifield of each eye at different frequencies to elicit

200 s to elicit SSVEP responses specific to each hemifield of each eye.

201 e flow pattern is restricted to the temporal hemifield of one eye, indicating that these responses do

202 ivalent arrays of false font and varying the hemifield of presentation using rapid serial visual pres

203 tives relative to false font, insensitive to hemifield of presentation, was distributed along the ven

204 hysiological VWM deficits independent of the hemifield of stimulus presentation but have intact extra

205 iewing, large target steps into the temporal hemifield of the nonfixating eye (nasal retina of the no

206 Target steps into the nasal hemifield of the nonfixating eye (temporal retina of the

207 hanges with stimuli delivered to the 'blind' hemifields of monkeys with unilateral V1 removal, and al

208 th at least 1 point at P < 0.005 in the same hemifield on the pattern deviation plot.

209 en percepts formed by grouping complementary hemifields one from each eye.

210 wo targets were presented either in the same hemifield or different hemifields.

211 neous stimuli occurred either across the two hemifields or within the same hemifield.

212 inferior hemifield, superior hemifield, both hemifields, or neither hemifield.

213 continuous maps from contra- and ipsilateral hemifield overlap each other, whereas in ventral V2 and

214 icantly reduced in glaucoma patients in both hemifields (P < 0.001).

215 e at these locations to be on par with lower hemifield performance.

216 follows: any 2 contiguous points in the same hemifield progressing (</=-1.00 dB/year for inner points

217 For angles in the direction of upper hemifield relative to the median angle (-8.13 degrees ),

218 e redirection of gaze toward the ipsilateral hemifield remained highly proficient.

219 s found behaviorally, with characters in one hemifield reported less accurately when competing charac

220 Polar-angle maps showed one complete hemifield representation bordering area V4 anteriorly, s

221 The location of this hemifield representation corresponds to area V4A.

222 changes, with a decrease of the ipsilateral hemifield representation on the right and increase on th

223 entrally, we identified three other complete hemifield representations.

224 with dual, mirror-symmetric RFs, one in each hemifield (RFd), and (4) abnormal cells with broad RFs t

225 ) abnormal cells with RFs in the ipsilateral hemifield (RFi), (3) abnormal cells with dual, mirror-sy

226 omonymous region of the contralateral visual hemifield (scotoma).

227 The hemifield specific deficit in open-loop pursuit demonstr

228 Hemifield stimulation studies demonstrated that stimuli

229 Operating Characteristic curve was 0.81 for hemifield stimuli (sensitivity and specificity, 70% to 7

230 ibit a bias of visual attention whereby left hemifield stimuli are processed more quickly and accurat

231 For hemifield stimuli, the MOBS test procedure had better te

232 taphoricity effects were very similar across hemifields, suggesting that the integration of metaphori

233 sified as having a VF defect in the inferior hemifield, superior hemifield, both hemifields, or neith

234 ulation process with earlier onsets for left hemifield targets.

235 pattern standard deviation (PSD) or glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) outside normal limits on 3 consecut

236 ndard deviation (PSD) P </= 0.05 or glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) outside normal limits, according to

237 ugh the two tests yielded identical Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT) results in 179 patients (76%), 16 p

238 A scoring system similar to the Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT) was used to calculate point scores

239 visual fields (normal results in a Glaucoma Hemifield Test [GHT] on standard automated perimetry [SA

240 uired a repeatable abnormal result (glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] or corrected pattern standard devia

241 standard deviation [PSD] <5% and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] results outside normal limits).

242 ern standard deviation [PSD] and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT]) from 153 patients with glaucoma an

243 cal hemifield defects with abnormal Glaucoma Hemifield Test and various combinations of arcuate defec

244 d FP classifications on VF testing (glaucoma hemifield test as outside normal limits and pattern stan

245 =2 worsening points within the same Glaucoma Hemifield Test cluster.

246 0.85 (SVMg, thresholds clustered by Glaucoma Hemifield Test sectors) to 0.92 (QDA, thresholds cluster

247 s divided into regions according to glaucoma hemifield test sectors.

248 ld result (pattern stand deviation, glaucoma hemifield test, and cluster) and an abnormal multifocal

249 Of the 200 hemifields tested (50 patients x two eyes x two hemifiel

250 e attention across the left and right visual hemifields than within the same visual hemifield.

251 eives excitatory input from an entire visual hemifield that anatomical evidence suggests is retinotop

252 acent testing points located within the same hemifield that showed progression with a change of -1 dB

253 ls in the right and lower visual fields, the hemifields that are dominant for visuomotor processing.

254 that unexpectedly jumped into either visual hemifield, the latencies of mid-flight adjustment were t

255 argets were presented in the same vs. across hemifields, the latter yielding a greater redundancy gai

256 pia that was largely restricted to the nasal hemifield; these alterations in the patterns of peripher

257 nse to a visual stimulus presented to either hemifield, this acallosal subject showed a significant c

258 the information in the contralateral visual hemifield to which it has direct access.

259 lateral projection of information in the two hemifields to the two hemispheres and has been shown to

260 pital activation as a function of the visual hemifield toward which attention or memory was directed

261 Hemifield tuning in cortical and subcortical regions eme

262 limb (crossed) compared with the ipsilateral hemifield (uncrossed).

263 eaching were presented in the left and right hemifields under central fixation, we found a lateraliza

264 across the vertical meridian to both visual hemifields, versus one population by stimulating in one

265 Eyes with glaucoma and single-hemifield VF defect and normal eyes underwent scanning u

266 emispheres in eyes with glaucoma with single-hemifield visual field (VF) defects may provide insight

267 Previous experiments using hemifield visual presentation combined with human electr

268 Our results show that the hemifield visual stimulation only activates LGN in the c

269 itions and during either full-field or right hemifield visual stimulation with a black and white reve

270 58) in the left primary visual cortex (right hemifield visual stimulation) and in both right and left

271 With right hemifield visual stimulation, perfusion was significantl

272 peeds response times to left, but not right, hemifield visual stimuli, via an asymmetric effect on ri

273 both the HVF and mfVEP probability plots, a hemifield was classified as abnormal if three or more co

274 Each hemifield was divided into regions according to glaucoma

275 of clinic-based PACG patients, the superior hemifield was found to be affected more severely than th

276 any trials, task performance in the affected hemifield was nearly normal.

277 tually complete representation of the visual hemifield was observed in V1, which was coextensive with

278 The contralateral visual hemifield was represented with the lower field in the me

279 Amplitude asymmetry between upper and lower hemifields was larger for cVEPs than for mfVEPs.

280 ls, the subtractive resultants for the blind hemifield were compared with the same subtractions for t

281 Locations in the superior hemifield were usually best correlated with the polar in

282 ectors of the ONH; locations in the inferior hemifield were usually best correlated with the polar su

283 Reliable: VF hemifields were classified as abnormal based on a cluste

284 l hemifields, whereas 74.4% of the actual VF hemifields were classified as abnormal.

285 ults agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were abnormal on both the

286 ificantly progressing points within the same hemifield) were used for VF progression.

287 ared with the same subtractions for the good hemifield when the subject was aware both of the stimuli

288 vity of the derived VF reached 78.0% for all hemifields, whereas 74.4% of the actual VF hemifields we

289 ted and matched between the normal and blind hemifields, whereas brightness cannot.

290 had to remember items presented on the cued hemifield while ignoring the distractors presented on th

291 timuli presented simultaneously in different hemifields while we independently varied the reward magn

292 ds stimuli introduced into the contralateral hemifield, while the redirection of gaze toward the ipsi

293 rected attention to the left or right visual hemifield with an 80% validity with respect to the upcom

294 odalities (vision or touch, in left or right hemifield) with spatially directed responses to such sti

295 e left hemifield as faster than in the right hemifield, with a trend for the opposite pattern for LPD

296 ttentional weight," toward the contralateral hemifield, with the sum of the weights constituting the

297 ar signals about motion direction in the two hemifields, with comparable direction selectivity and si

298 ies of five maps of the contralateral visual hemifield within human posterior parietal cortex.

299 d masks were used to isolate upper and lower hemifields, within various field windows, for comparison

300 to clinical blindness in the opposite visual hemifield, yet nonconscious ability to transform unseen