Talk:Visual extinction

Good

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

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)

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)

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))

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))

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))

This article has a lot of great information about visual extinction and is very accessible to readers who have not studied this disorder before. The order of the categories also make the article flow easily, however the article might be improved by adding another section that discusses features of the brain involved in visual processing. In the Society and Culture section you discuss damage to the parietal lobe and consequences of the damage, but it is not discussed in the previous section of causes. It may be beneficial to readers to include a section near the beginning of the article which describes important areas or pathways of the brain that allow differentiation between visual stimulus in a person without visual extinction. That would help readers better understand causes of the disorder when these mechanisms are disrupted.

You should also be careful with your use of parentheses. In the treatment section, parentheses were used where comma may be more fitting. This might improve the structure of the sentence and the flow of the article. Additionally, you may consider creating links to other wikipedia pages for terms that the reader may not understand, such as related diseases or anatomical vocabulary. This will help readers address questions they may have that were not of importance to define in the article. Good luck! Daigleal (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I really liked all the research that you refer to in this article and how that has lead to the information about visual extinction. Another experiment that I found that is similar to those in your Diagnosis section is about how visual extinction effects motion perception. Patients were show a straight line and were asked which direction it was moving. This articles deals with how visual extinction relates to pathological attention, visual awareness and motion perception. I think that some of this could be added to the Society and Culture section of your paper. The article which might be helpful is Visual extinction and prior entry: Impaired perception of temporal order with intact motion perception after unilateral parietal damage by Rorden, Mattingley, Karnath and Driver. Good luck! (Neurodana (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

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)

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)

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)
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)

• 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)

Interesting topic! First of all make sure you add some internal links in your article so that it is linked with other wiki articles! Also I was wondering if your History section was necessary or maybe it could be changed into case studies and add some more examples. I also feel that when talking about damage to the brian some more explanation should be added about what is actually being damaged and what this causes. I feel that the prognosis section should be combined with the treatments section as well because it is talking more about how to treat the condition. Finally I think it would be benificial to have more detail from experiments or case studies that dive deaper to the topic to give some added detail and breadth. EPalmquist (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Great job, interesting topic. The history section could be reworked, either talk more about the history of the progress made in understanding and treating the disease or just put it as the first paragraph of the causes section, it might fit well there. Also, is there any way to diagnose the illness using brain imaging? Maybe an MRI would reveal injury to the particular part of the brain associated with visual extinction. The prognosis section may be unnecessary and could be moved to the treatment section. Pmcb97 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Very good article overall. One suggestion would be to maybe mention how grouping stimuli may reduce visual extinction. here is an abstract that talks about it. You can probably access the entire article through inter-library loan. http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1997-07319-003. Basically the abstract discusses how object in different fields that have some sort of similarity are less likely to become "extinct". This link may be helpful with this as well.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-3YMFJC9-16&_user=521319&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1114538461&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000026018&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=521319&md5=ff3e034ce0d361f6e1dd45a33c6e0fa0. You might also want to discuss the competition factor in visual extinction and why certain objects are perceived while others are excluded. For example, the letter x is more likely than the letter o to interfere in seeing the letter z. This links goes into more detail about the topic. I think it could be added under a seperate symptoms section. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062937?cookieSet=1. Great article and good luck!!!Sunderv (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a link to the article i requested on your behalf on InterLibrary Loan. https://illiad2.bc.edu/illiad/BXM/illiad.dll?SessionID=G115613223T&Action=10&Form=75&Value=253229. Hope its helpful, let me know if you have any trouble opening it! Good Luck! Fdemsas (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Revisions

This is a great start guys. I have an idea of what visual extinction is and I had no clue what it could be before i read this. Here are a few suggestions, hope they help!

• You might want to change visual area to occipital lobe at the beginning
• You should also link quite a few terms in here that confused me, such as:
  • Afferent Inputs
  • LLA--if you link it then you don't need the explanation of what it is
  • Visual Neglect
  • Attentional Deficit
  • The experiment by Villeuminer and Rafal--if it isn't on wikipedia explain what it was or get rid of it because most people have no idea who they are or what the experiment was about

• What are simple stimuli properties? linkable? A short explanation would be helpful if you cant link it
• The first sentences of the causes and history sections are somewhat redundant
• Does anyone know why it remains stagnant versus getting worse in some cases? I looked on google and couldn't the answer. Do you guys have that information or can you find it?
• You added an extra "work" in the last sentence of the first paragraph in the treatment section.
• The first sentence of the second paragraph in the treatment section is somewhat confusing and passive. You may want to revise it
  • Suggestion: There are other effective computer scanning methods that use specialized equipment designed specifically for scanning and cuing exercises that force patients to focus on multiple stimuli simultaneously.

• What is the range of 6 degrees of the angle of vision? I looked on google and couldn't find this either. I don't have a clue what that means so i assume a lot of other people don't understand it either
• In the Culture and Society section you have a sentence about two visual stimuli being presented to a patient...etc. I don't think it belongs in this section, but i do think it is a good piece of information. You might want to put it into the introduction or the history section.

Besides that I like your article and I think you do a good job explaining what Visual Extinction is [User:liskak|Liskak]] (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good start to a very interesting topic. A few things to consider: first of all, watch your grammar, especially the use of commas. I think it would be a good idea to include some kind of example in your intro section about the disease itself. I had to read it a few times to understand what exactly visual extinction meant, not because it was poorly written, but because it's a complicated topic in itself. For example, when you say "fail to place objects in space" I think the reader would benefit from an example that illustrates this. How exactly do they fail to place it in space compared to someone without visual extinction? I think the first sentence in the history section should be reworded because it sounds as if visual extinction is poorly understood BECAUSE of unilateral cerebral damage, but I think you mean it is poorly understood but believed to be caused by cerebral damage. I think the causes section of your article should be your biggest point of focus for revision. It should, in my opinion, be the most in depth and probably longest section of the article.

Although the cause of visual extinction is poorly understood, you could give some hypotheses that have been formed regarding the specific areas of the brain involved. Do they know what regions of the brain are affected that cause visual extinction? Does damage to the right hemisphere yield the same symptoms as damage to the left hemisphere regarding visual extinction? Your causes section seemed to made up mostly of symptoms, and I think you should consider making this into two different sections in your article. Symptoms of visual extinction are vital to your article, but they are not the same things as causes of the disease. I think your treatments section is very well done and thorough, and the society and further research sections are very interesting and greatly enhance your article. In general, I think you should focus on what might cause visual extinction and go into more depth about what parts of the brain are, or could be, involved.Try these sources to help you out:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4W4CWWB-2&_user=521319&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000026018&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=521319&md5=415535f48e36bd0e2ee8e5f37306ca19

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYP-4V3SY38-2&_user=521319&_coverDate=05%2F16%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000026018&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=521319&md5=12c73f2e687111082a7c78caf251a87a [User:Brikathleen|Brikathleen]] (talk)