Unilateral spatial neglect is conventionally defined as an attentional disorder arising as a result of unilateral brain damage, characterised by a failure to perceive stimuli originating from the contralesional side. Although attempts have been made to provide a unified definition of the symptomatology and possible associated deficits, inter- and intra-individual clinical variability has led to it being characterised as a complex syndrome that is difficult to categorise in a single, unambiguous way. For these reasons, this paper aims, through a critical review of the literature, to demonstrate that this disorder is not merely attributable to an attentional deficit. Indeed, the literature reviewed reveals symptoms and aspects that cannot be attributed exclusively to the attentional component, but which involve the relationship between spatial perception and body representation, with consequent implications for the possibilities for action. Starting from the traditional definition of the disorder, the approach adopted examines the possible causes and the neuroanatomical sites involved, before moving on to resolve the ‘anatomical-functional paradox’ described by Corbetta and Shulman through the introduction of the dorsal and ventral systems. The line of argument continues with the theme of spatial perception, in particular how it varies according to the reference system under consideration. Its dynamic nature is analysed, along with how it is processed not in a neutral manner, but according to the individual’s possibilities for action. The analysis then shifts to the interaction between the environment and bodily perception: in order to interface with space, the cognitive system draws on a representation of the body in which the environment is organised in relation to action. According to this perspective, the deficit is not purely attentional, but compromises the ways in which the patient processes and acts within the contralesional space. The link between perception, the body and action finds particular expression in the concept of affordance, with significant implications for the manifestation of unilateral spatial neglect. The disorder is not defined exclusively by the failure to perceive stimuli in the contralesional space, but also by the inability to access affordances and the associated motor possibilities. Overall, this paper aims to synthesise the points developed in the preceding chapters, highlighting a perspective in which unilateral spatial neglect is not confined solely to the attentional domain, but represents a deeper impairment in the relationship between space, body and action.
Il neglect spaziale unilaterale è convenzionalmente definito come un disturbo attentivo emergente a seguito di danno cerebrale unilaterale, caratterizzato da una mancata ricezione degli stimoli provenienti dallo spazio controlesionale. Sebbene siano stati compiuti tentativi nel fornire una definizione unitaria della sintomatologia e dei possibili deficit associati, la variabilità clinica inter e intra-individuale ha portato a configurarlo come una sindrome complessa e difficilmente catalogabile in un modo univoco. Per tali ragioni, il presente elaborato mira, mediante il ricorso a una revisione critica della letteratura, a dimostrare come tale disturbo non sia meramente riconducibile a un deficit attentivo. Nella letteratura esaminata emergono, infatti, sintomi e aspetti che non possono essere attribuibili esclusivamente alla componente attentiva, ma che coinvolgono il rapporto tra la percezione spaziale e la rappresentazione corporea, con le conseguenti implicazioni nelle possibilità d’azione. Partendo dalla definizione tradizionale del disturbo, l’approccio adottato prende in esame le possibili cause e le sedi neuroanatomiche coinvolte, procedendo poi nel superamento del “paradosso anatomo-funzionale” descritto da Corbetta e Shulman, mediante l’introduzione dei sistemi dorsale e ventrale. Il filo argomentativo prosegue sul tema della percezione spaziale, in particolare come si declini in base al sistema di riferimento considerato. Viene analizzata la sua natura dinamica e come sia elaborato non in maniera neutrale, ma in base alle possibilità d’azione dell’individuo. L’analisi si sposta successivamente sull’interazione tra ambiente e percezione corporea: il sistema cognitivo, per interfacciarsi con lo spazio, ricorre a una rappresentazione del corpo in cui l’ambiente viene organizzato in funzione dell’azione. Secondo questa prospettiva, il deficit non è puramente attentivo, ma compromette le modalità in cui il paziente elabora e agisce nello spazio controlesionale. Il legame tra percezione, corpo e azione trova particolare espressione nel concetto di affordance, comportando implicazioni significative nell’espressione del neglect spaziale unilaterale. Il disturbo non è esclusivamente definito dalla mancata percezione degli stimoli dello spazio controlesionale, ma anche dall’impossibilità di accedere alle affordances e alle possibilità motorie correlate. Complessivamente, l’elaborato mira ad integrare quanto sviluppato nei capitoli, facendo emergere una prospettiva in cui il neglect spaziale unilaterale non si configura unicamente nel dominio attentivo, ma in una compromissione più profonda nel rapporto tra spazio, corpo e azione.
Oltre il deficit attentivo: il neglect spaziale unilaterale nella relazione tra spazio, azione e affordances
GRASSO, SOPHIA
2025/2026
Abstract
Unilateral spatial neglect is conventionally defined as an attentional disorder arising as a result of unilateral brain damage, characterised by a failure to perceive stimuli originating from the contralesional side. Although attempts have been made to provide a unified definition of the symptomatology and possible associated deficits, inter- and intra-individual clinical variability has led to it being characterised as a complex syndrome that is difficult to categorise in a single, unambiguous way. For these reasons, this paper aims, through a critical review of the literature, to demonstrate that this disorder is not merely attributable to an attentional deficit. Indeed, the literature reviewed reveals symptoms and aspects that cannot be attributed exclusively to the attentional component, but which involve the relationship between spatial perception and body representation, with consequent implications for the possibilities for action. Starting from the traditional definition of the disorder, the approach adopted examines the possible causes and the neuroanatomical sites involved, before moving on to resolve the ‘anatomical-functional paradox’ described by Corbetta and Shulman through the introduction of the dorsal and ventral systems. The line of argument continues with the theme of spatial perception, in particular how it varies according to the reference system under consideration. Its dynamic nature is analysed, along with how it is processed not in a neutral manner, but according to the individual’s possibilities for action. The analysis then shifts to the interaction between the environment and bodily perception: in order to interface with space, the cognitive system draws on a representation of the body in which the environment is organised in relation to action. According to this perspective, the deficit is not purely attentional, but compromises the ways in which the patient processes and acts within the contralesional space. The link between perception, the body and action finds particular expression in the concept of affordance, with significant implications for the manifestation of unilateral spatial neglect. The disorder is not defined exclusively by the failure to perceive stimuli in the contralesional space, but also by the inability to access affordances and the associated motor possibilities. Overall, this paper aims to synthesise the points developed in the preceding chapters, highlighting a perspective in which unilateral spatial neglect is not confined solely to the attentional domain, but represents a deeper impairment in the relationship between space, body and action.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Grasso_Sophia.pdf
Accesso riservato
Dimensione
1.05 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.05 MB | Adobe PDF |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/109583