コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 cluster of three contiguous points within a hemifield).
2 atified by VF location (superior vs inferior hemifield).
3 isual hemifields than within the same visual hemifield.
4 vel processes were not constrained by visual hemifield.
5 -threshold targets specific to the entrained hemifield.
6 the hemisphere associated with the abnormal hemifield.
7 en both targets were tracked within the same hemifield.
8 g in an attentional bias to the right visual hemifield.
9 y when the context was limited to the intact hemifield.
10 resence of a distracter in the contralateral hemifield.
11 he diagonally opposite location in the lower hemifield.
12 lation of hMST also affected the ipsilateral hemifield.
13 an those preferring motion toward the cooled hemifield.
14 as higher for reporting changes in the right hemifield.
15 of the alpha parameter of TVA, regardless of hemifield.
16 eld and ignore all stimuli in the unattended hemifield.
17 sed attentional allocation towards the right hemifield.
18 t information, especially in the blind right hemifield.
19 n does the auditory stream from the opposite hemifield.
20 for orientations presented in the untrained hemifield.
21 but only when subjects attended to the left hemifield.
22 centric positions in the contralateral sound hemifield.
23 representations of the contralateral visual hemifield.
24 th hemispheres code the contralateral visual hemifield.
25 , also maps of the ipsilateral (left) visual hemifield.
26 bout all of space, including the ipsilateral hemifield.
27 a representation of the contralateral visual hemifield.
28 e four remaining locations were in the right hemifield.
29 presentation to both the left and the right hemifield.
30 ented in either the left or the right visual hemifield.
31 cted by the PFC lesion or the normal control hemifield.
32 c representation of the contralateral visual hemifield.
33 t to stimuli presented in the contralesional hemifield.
34 ut not at a control location in the opposite hemifield.
35 receptive fields in the opposite, untrained hemifield.
36 esponded best to sounds in the contralateral hemifield.
37 en waveforms from the upper versus the lower hemifield.
38 n unattended location in the opposite visual hemifield.
39 ide entirely within the left or right visual hemifield.
40 fear-conditioned faces in his blind (right) hemifield.
41 amiliar objects were presented in one visual hemifield.
42 rk objects located within, the contralateral hemifield.
43 across the two hemifields or within the same hemifield.
44 x for stimuli leading from the contralateral hemifield.
45 n competing characters appeared in the other hemifield.
46 ented without competing stimuli in the other hemifield.
47 ndant targets in the same or opposite visual hemifield.
48 e or with a distractor light in the opposite hemifield.
49 hrough the full representation of the visual hemifield.
50 or stimuli were equally likely in the uncued hemifield.
51 attended to the stimuli in the contralateral hemifield.
52 emselves completely ineffective in the blind hemifield.
53 tions, with overlap primarily at the central hemifield.
54 or neutral images into the temporal or nasal hemifield.
55 curately than stimuli appearing in the right hemifield.
56 itatory receptive field in the contralateral hemifield.
57 ntly represents stimuli in the contralateral hemifield.
58 ther in the symmetric region in the opposite hemifield.
59 erior hemifield, both hemifields, or neither hemifield.
60 ood than to bad objects in the contralateral hemifield.
61 versus one population by stimulating in one hemifield.
62 requiring covert attention to either visual hemifield.
63 oring the distractors presented on the other hemifield.
64 15 degrees intervals throughout the frontal hemifield.
65 each with a receptive field serving only one hemifield.
66 suppress task-irrelevant stimuli in the left hemifield.
67 on of detection performance in the entrained hemifield.
68 ese were presented predominantly in the left hemifield.
69 ts to complete loss of inferior and superior hemifields.
70 visual processing when it is divided across hemifields.
71 location of attended targets in both visual hemifields.
72 al) and nontarget objects in opposite visual hemifields.
73 rd masking when targets are presented across hemifields.
74 ed either in the same hemifield or different hemifields.
75 distribution of attention across both visual hemifields.
76 ating a convergence of information from both hemifields.
77 hyperopia in both the nasal and the temporal hemifields.
78 r, typically producing myopia in the treated hemifields.
79 by visual bars alternating between opposite hemifields.
80 the HVF, whereas the reverse was true of 17 hemifields.
81 luster 4 (6 GON) showed deep defects in both hemifields.
82 involved remapping of visual signals across hemifields.
83 ched visual fields that extend onto opposite hemifields.
84 een hemifields as well as within each of the hemifields.
85 entirely restricted to the subjects' "blind" 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 seamlessly tracked when they traverse visual hemifields?
93 to the four stimulus positions in the nasal hemifield (-4 degrees , -12 degrees , -20 degrees , and
97 ifields tested (50 patients x two eyes x two hemifields), 75 showed significant clusters on the HVF,
98 nset and offset are presented to the 'blind' hemifield, a hemianopic subject with damage largely rest
100 the horizontal meridian of the contralateral hemifield activated cortex along the V2V3 border, wherea
101 For snakes only, we observed a temporal hemifield advantage, which indicates facilitation by the
102 ng colored distracter gratings in either the hemifield affected by the PFC lesion or the normal contr
104 bited when the object enters the ipsilateral hemifield and display an additional excitation after the
105 to respond to target stimuli in the attended hemifield and ignore all stimuli in the unattended hemif
106 they allocated attention to a target in one hemifield and ignored a distracter on the opposite side.
107 ely increased and the number of neurons with hemifield and non-directional selectivity curves decreas
108 imuli appeared in either the intact or blind hemifield and simple responses were given with either th
110 ts reported both click location (one or both hemifields) and the number of clicks they heard (one or
113 be affected more severely than the inferior hemifield, and the differences between them increased wi
114 e HVF and mfVEP results agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were ab
115 everity, an extent of VF loss into different hemifields, and characteristic local patterns of VF loss
117 ents and HC perceived optic flow in the left hemifield as faster than in the right hemifield, with a
119 which two clicks were perceived in the same hemifield as the leading click, providing a dissociation
121 The 10-2 VF was abnormal in nearly as many hemifields as was the 24-2 VF, including some with norma
122 bility to detect two similar targets between hemifields as well as within each of the hemifields.
123 tly higher for detecting changes in the left hemifield, bias was higher for reporting changes in the
126 ped maps of the contralateral (right) visual hemifield but, surprisingly, also maps of the ipsilatera
127 find the target in the array in the affected hemifield, but leaving intact their ability to make sacc
129 Finally, detection performance in the upper hemifield changed on a rapid timescale, improving with s
130 he representation of space follows closely a hemifield code and suggest that enhanced posterior-dorsa
131 s predominantly represented by a distributed hemifield code rather than by a local spatial topography
136 e efficient target tracking, and that within-hemifield competition limits the ability to modulate mul
137 localized sound sources in the contralateral hemifield, consistent with lesion studies, and did so wi
138 ects persisted even when all the flow in the hemifield containing the probe was removed (experiment 2
139 a spatial component (target selection in the hemifield contralateral or ipsilateral to the inactivati
141 ains (1) normal cells with RFs in the visual hemifield contralateral to the recording site (RFc), (2)
142 onses to a target that appears in the visual hemifield contralateral to the responding limb (crossed)
144 timulation in the anatomically corresponding hemifield could boost responses in contralateral visual
146 Gabor patch moving away from the deactivated hemifield decreased prestimulus and stimulus-driven acti
147 s, and cluster 3 (10 GON) held deep inferior hemifield defects only or in combination with lesser sup
148 glaucoma patients with symmetrical bilateral hemifield defects respecting the horizontal meridian (n
149 patients had glaucomatous-like asymmetrical hemifield defects with abnormal Glaucoma Hemifield Test
150 2 (26 GON) exhibited primarily deep superior hemifield defects, and cluster 3 (10 GON) held deep infe
152 l expressions presented in his blind (right) hemifield despite an extensive lesion of the correspondi
153 dlPFC neurons with selectivity for opposite hemifields directly compete with each other for target s
155 hin the same modality (visual domain: across hemifields; Experiment 2) while recording EEG over 128 s
157 longitudinal analyses, IPFS in the superior hemifield had an arcuate pattern initially that later de
158 eld comparisons, all regions in the superior hemifield had worse MDs compared with their counterparts
160 dules were primarily located in the inferior hemifield (half) of the iris, regardless of its color (P
161 tures that are potentially relevant for both hemifields (i.e., coherent motion but also collinear sha
163 phase were found to be modulated by attended hemifield, implying that the bilateral nature of the res
166 percepts derived for the normal and affected hemifield in a human hemianope with visual stimuli of wh
167 dary, confining responses to a single visual hemifield in a sagittal frame of reference (i.e., relati
169 entation of sensory inputs (the right visual hemifield in the left hemisphere and vice versa) is a fu
170 test stimuli were located in the same visual hemifield in the no-shift task, and on opposite sides in
171 ographic representation of the contralateral hemifield in the ventral subdivision of the LIP (LIPv) i
172 produced by flicker in complementary visual hemifields--in the same eye or across eyes, but never by
173 t all tested locations, even in the opposite hemifield, indicating much broader spatial tuning of the
174 biases toward representing the contralateral hemifield, indicating that the underlying neural archite
175 her attention was divided across or within a hemifield, indicating that these higher-level processes
176 participants tracked two targets in separate hemifields, indicating that attention can modulate early
178 execution of movements to the contralateral hemifield irrespective of both input modality and the ty
179 locations, suggesting that the entire visual hemifield is represented in modules of corresponding dim
180 urden between the superior and inferior iris hemifields is most likely due to the sunlight-shielding
181 cated at any moment to locations in opposite hemifields is uncorrelated, suggesting that animals allo
183 analysis showed that the MD of the superior hemifield IVF was associated only with near activities (
184 0.21; P < .001) while the MD of the inferior hemifield IVF was associated with general vision (beta =
185 ction Questionnaire and superior or inferior hemifield IVF was determined using multivariable linear
189 the probability of presentation in the upper hemifield locations (to 80%) dramatically improved detec
191 measurements support a model that includes a hemifield map, hV4, adjacent to the central field repres
193 ization and stimulus responsivity of two new hemifield maps, VO-1 and VO-2, within this cluster.
194 en stimuli were also present in the opposite hemifield, mirroring the extinction phenomenon commonly
195 hey are related to the binding of the visual hemifields (monocular or interocular) into a coherent pe
197 ncy-tagging' by flickering a grating in each hemifield of each eye at different frequencies to elicit
199 affected hemisphere corresponding to the VF hemifield of more severe loss, which was used to calcula
200 ivalent arrays of false font and varying the hemifield of presentation using rapid serial visual pres
201 tives relative to false font, insensitive to hemifield of presentation, was distributed along the ven
202 hysiological VWM deficits independent of the hemifield of stimulus presentation but have intact extra
203 iewing, large target steps into the temporal hemifield of the nonfixating eye (nasal retina of the no
210 continuous maps from contra- and ipsilateral hemifield overlap each other, whereas in ventral V2 and
213 follows: any 2 contiguous points in the same hemifield progressing (</=-1.00 dB/year for inner points
216 s found behaviorally, with characters in one hemifield reported less accurately when competing charac
219 changes, with a decrease of the ipsilateral hemifield representation on the right and increase on th
221 with dual, mirror-symmetric RFs, one in each hemifield (RFd), and (4) abnormal cells with broad RFs t
222 ) abnormal cells with RFs in the ipsilateral hemifield (RFi), (3) abnormal cells with dual, mirror-sy
226 ibit a bias of visual attention whereby left hemifield stimuli are processed more quickly and accurat
227 taphoricity effects were very similar across hemifields, suggesting that the integration of metaphori
228 sified as having a VF defect in the inferior hemifield, superior hemifield, both hemifields, or neith
230 pattern standard deviation (PSD) or glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) outside normal limits on 3 consecut
231 ndard deviation (PSD) P </= 0.05 or glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) outside normal limits, according to
232 ugh the two tests yielded identical Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT) results in 179 patients (76%), 16 p
233 A scoring system similar to the Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT) was used to calculate point scores
234 visual fields (normal results in a Glaucoma Hemifield Test [GHT] on standard automated perimetry [SA
235 uired a repeatable abnormal result (glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] or corrected pattern standard devia
236 standard deviation [PSD] <5% and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] results outside normal limits).
237 ern standard deviation [PSD] and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT]) from 153 patients with glaucoma an
238 cal hemifield defects with abnormal Glaucoma Hemifield Test and various combinations of arcuate defec
239 d FP classifications on VF testing (glaucoma hemifield test as outside normal limits and pattern stan
241 iation, pattern standard deviation, glaucoma hemifield test results, FPR, FNR, and FL); (2) total dev
242 d eyes with mild glaucoma (abnormal glaucoma hemifield test results, pattern standard deviation <0.05
243 0.85 (SVMg, thresholds clustered by Glaucoma Hemifield Test sectors) to 0.92 (QDA, thresholds cluster
245 ld result (pattern stand deviation, glaucoma hemifield test, and cluster) and an abnormal multifocal
248 eives excitatory input from an entire visual hemifield that anatomical evidence suggests is retinotop
249 acent testing points located within the same hemifield that showed progression with a change of -1 dB
250 ls in the right and lower visual fields, the hemifields that are dominant for visuomotor processing.
251 ior OTS) contained spatial channels for both hemifields that were independently modulated by selectiv
252 that unexpectedly jumped into either visual hemifield, the latencies of mid-flight adjustment were t
253 argets were presented in the same vs. across hemifields, the latter yielding a greater redundancy gai
254 pia that was largely restricted to the nasal hemifield; these alterations in the patterns of peripher
255 nse to a visual stimulus presented to either hemifield, this acallosal subject showed a significant c
256 ionary stimulus that changed from one visual hemifield to the other because of a horizontal saccadic
258 cipants divided attention between two visual hemifields to identify the orientation of a Gabor gratin
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
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
266 emispheres in eyes with glaucoma with single-hemifield visual field (VF) defects may provide insight
269 peeds response times to left, but not right, hemifield visual stimuli, via an asymmetric effect on ri
270 both the HVF and mfVEP probability plots, a hemifield was classified as abnormal if three or more co
272 of clinic-based PACG patients, the superior hemifield was found to be affected more severely than th
274 tually complete representation of the visual hemifield was observed in V1, which was coextensive with
277 ls, the subtractive resultants for the blind hemifield were compared with the same subtractions for t
279 ectors of the ONH; locations in the inferior hemifield were usually best correlated with the polar su
282 ults agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were abnormal on both the
284 ared with the same subtractions for the good hemifield when the subject was aware both of the stimuli
285 vity of the derived VF reached 78.0% for all hemifields, whereas 74.4% of the actual VF hemifields we
287 had to remember items presented on the cued hemifield while ignoring the distractors presented on th
288 timuli presented simultaneously in different hemifields while we independently varied the reward magn
289 ds stimuli introduced into the contralateral hemifield, while the redirection of gaze toward the ipsi
290 ry patterns of asymmetries across the visual hemifields: While sensitivity was consistently higher fo
291 rected attention to the left or right visual hemifield with an 80% validity with respect to the upcom
292 FLT (superior RNFLT: - 0.5 mum/year) and the hemifield with greater baseline PcVD (inferior PcVD: - 2
293 progression (P < 0.05) was seen only for the hemifield with greater baseline RNFLT (superior RNFLT: -
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
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