SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3

Pseudoneglect and Line Bisection Test: The effects of gender, handedness, hand used, and scanning direction variables

Yalancı İhmal ve Çizgi Bölme Testi: Cinsiyet, el tercihi, kullanılan el ve tarama yönü değişkenlerinin etkisi

Simge Şişman Bal(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5551-2220
Simay Alptekin(İSTANBUL MEDİPOL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1362-6531
Pages
293–312
Publication Date
2026-01-22
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings indicate that healthy individuals do not always exhibit leftward deviation and that pseudoneglect may vary depending on the interaction of multiple factors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Line Bisection Test (LBT) is one of the oldest tools in assessing patients with neglect.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to evaluate pseudoneglect and LBT performance in the context of gender, handedness, hand used for line bisection, and scanning direction.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings indicate that healthy individuals do not always exhibit leftward deviation and that pseudoneglect may vary depending on the interaction of multiple factors.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:çizgi bölme testi · yalancı ihmal · el tercihi

Abstract

The Line Bisection Test (LBT) is one of the oldest tools in assessing patients with neglect. In the test, patients are asked to bisect horizontal lines printed on paper by marking their midpoint, and it has been reported that patients with neglect tend to bisect the lines with a rightward bias from the true center. Due to its sensitivity to visuospatial functions, the LBT is also frequently administered to healthy participants. Unlike neglect patients, healthy individuals show a leftward bias, referred to as “pseudoneglect”. This study aims to evaluate pseudoneglect and LBT performance in the context of gender, handedness, hand used for line bisection, and scanning direction. The sample consisted of 34 university students (16 female; 18 left-handed) aged between 19 and 24 years (M = 20.9 ± 1.71). Participants completed a Participant Information Form, the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory, and the LBT. 2 (gender: female/male) × 2 (handedness: right-/left-handed) × 2 (hand used: right/left) × 2 (scanning direction: left-to-right/right-to-left) mixed-factorial design was employed. Gender and handedness were measured as between-subjects variables, and hand used and scanning direction as within-subjects variables. The LBT was administered four times, with hand used and scanning direction counterbalanced. Participants’ performance was evaluated by calculating the direction and degree of deviation from the true center for each line. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of hand used in LBT (p = .001) and a significant three-way interaction between gender, handedness, and scanning direction (p = .014). These findings indicate that healthy individuals do not always exhibit leftward deviation and that pseudoneglect may vary depending on the interaction of multiple factors.

Özet

Çizgi Bölme Testi (ÇBT), ihmal hastalarının değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan en eski araçlardan biridir. Testte hastalardan kağıt üzerinde bulunan yatay çizgileri tam ortasından işaretleyerek ikiye bölmeleri istenmektedir ve ihmal hastalarının, çizgileri orta noktanın sağına doğru bir yanlılıkla böldükleri bildirilmektedir. Görsel-mekânsal işlevlere duyarlı doğası gereği ÇBT, sağlıklı katılımcılara da sıklıkla uygulanmaktadır. İhmal hastalarının tersine sağlıklı bireyler, testteki çizgileri orta noktanın solundan bölme eğiliminde olduğundan bu durum “yalancı ihmal” olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yalancı ihmal ve ÇBT performansını cinsiyet, el tercihi, çizgi bölmede kullanılan el ve tarama yönü değişkenleri çerçevesinde değerlendirmektir. Araştırmanın örneklemini 19-24 yaş aralığında (Ort. = 20.97 ± 1.71) 34 üniversite öğrencisi (16 kadın; 18 solak) oluşturmuştur. Katılımcılara Katılımcı Bilgi Formu, Edinburgh El Tercihi Envanteri ve ÇBT uygulanmıştır. Çalışmada 2 (cinsiyet: kadın/erkek) x 2 (el tercihi: sağlak/solak) x 2 (çizgi bölmede kullanılan el: sol/sağ) x 2 (tarama yönü: soldan-sağa/sağdan-sola) bağımsız değişkenlerinin dâhil edildiği çok faktörlü karma desen kullanılmıştır. Cinsiyet ve el tercihi bağımsız değişkenleri gruplar arası, çizgi bölmede kullanılan el ve tarama yönü bağımsız değişkenleri grup içi olarak ölçümlenmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında ÇBT, çizgi bölmede kullanılan el ve tarama yönü dengelenerek katılımcılara dört kez uygulanmış olup katılımcıların performansı her çizgi için merkezden sapma yönü ve derecesi hesaplanarak değerlendirilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, katılımcıların ÇBT performansı üzerinde, çizgiyi bölmede kullanılan elin temel etkisi (p = .001) ile cinsiyet, el tercihi ve tarama yönü değişkenlerinin üçlü etkileşim etkisinin (p = .014) anlamlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu bulgular, sağlıklı katılımcılara ÇBT uygulandığında, bireylerin her koşulda yalancı ihmali gösterecek şekilde merkezden sola doğru sapma yapmadıklarını ve dolayısıyla yalancı ihmal bulgularının birbirleri ile etkileşime giren çeşitli faktörlerin etkisiyle farklılaşabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bal, S. Ş., Alptekin, S. (2026). Pseudoneglect and Line Bisection Test: The effects of gender, handedness, hand used, and scanning direction variables. Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 293–312. https://doi.org/10.57127/kpd.26024438.1745718

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (87)

  1. Atasavun Uysal, S., Ekinci, Y., Çoban, F. ve Yakut, Y. (2019). Edinburgh el tercihi anketi Türkçe güvenirliğinin araştırılması. Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation, 6(2), 112-118.
  2. Barrett, A. M. ve Craver-Lemley, C. E. (2008). Is it what you see, or how you say it? Spatial bias in young and aged subjects. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14(4), 562-570.
  3. Bartolomeo, P. ve Seidel Malkinson, T. (2019). Hemispheric lateralization of attention processes in the human brain. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 90-96.
  4. Beste, C., Hamm, J. P. ve Hausmann, M. (2006). Developmental changes in visual line bisection in women throughout adulthood. Developmental Neuropsychology, 30(2), 753-767.
  5. Bethmann, A., Tempelmann, C., De Bleser, R., Scheich, H. ve Brechmann, A. (2007). Determining language laterality by fMRI and dichotic listening. Brain Research, 1133(1), 145-157.
  6. Bowers, D. ve Heilman, K. M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18(4-5), 491-498.
  7. Bradshaw, J. L., Nettleton, N. C., Wilson, L. E. ve Bradshaw, C. S. (1987). Line bisection by left-handed preschoolers: A phenomenon of symmetrical neglect. Brain and Cognition, 6(4), 377-385.
  8. Brodie, E. E. ve Pettigrew, L. E. L. (1996). Is left always right? Directional deviations in visual line bisection as a function of hand and initial scanning direction. Neuropsychologia, 34(5), 467-470.
  9. Brodie, E. E. ve Dunn, E. M. (2005). Visual line bisection in sinistrals and dextrals as a function of hemispace, hand, and scan direction. Brain and Cognition, 58(2), 149–156.
  10. Cai, Q. ve Van der Haegen, L. (2015). What can atypical language hemispheric specialization tell us about cognitive functions?. Neuroscience Bulletin, 31(2), 220–226.
  11. Can, S. S., Özel Kızıl, E. T., Varlı, M., Turan, E. ve Atlı, T. (2010). Demans hastalarında üç farklı saat çizme testinin Türkçe uyarlamalarının psikometrik özellikleri. Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi, 47, 91-95.
  12. Cangöz, B., Karakoç, E. ve Selekler, K. (2006). Saat çizme testinin 50 yaş ve üzeri Türk yetişkin ve yaşlı örneklemi üzerindeki norm belirleme ve geçerlik-güvenirlik çalışmaları. Turkish Journal of Geriatrics, 9(3), 136-142.
  13. Chechlacz, M., Rotshtein, P. ve Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Neuroanatomical dissections of unilateral visual neglect symptoms: ALE meta-analysis of lesion-symptom mapping. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 230.
  14. Chen, P. ve Goedert, K. M. (2012). Clock drawing in spatial neglect: A comprehensive analysis of clock perimeter, placement, and accuracy. Journal of Neuropsychology, 6(2), 270-289.
  15. Chokron, S., Bartolomeo, P., Perenin, M.-T., Helft, G. ve Imbert, M. (1998). Scanning direction and line bisection: A study of normal subjects and unilateral neglect patients with opposite reading habits. Cognitive Brain Research, 7(2), 173-178.
  16. Chokron, S. ve Imbert, M. (1993). Influence of reading habits on line bisection. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(4), 219-222.
  17. Corballis, M. C. (2010). Handedness and cerebral asymmetry: An evolutionary perspective. The two halves of the brain: Information processing in the cerebral hemispheres içinde (s. 65-88). The MIT Press.
  18. Çiçek, M., Nalçacı, E. ve Kalaycıoğlu, C. (2003). Line bisection task performance and resting EEG alpha power. International Journal of Neuroscience, 113(6), 849-866.
  19. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S. ve Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396.
  20. Dellatolas, G., Coutin, T. ve De Agostini, M. (1996). Bisection and perception of horizontal lines in normal children. Cortex, 32(4), 705-715.
  21. Eardley, A. F., Darling, S., Dumper, P., Browne, D. ve van Velzen, J. (2017). Related but different: Examining pseudo-neglect in audition, touch and vision. Brain and Cognition, 113, 164-171.
  22. Failla, C. V., Sheppard, D. M. ve Bradshaw, J. L. (2003). Age and responding-hand related changes in performance of neurologically normal subjects on the line-bisection and chimeric-faces tasks. Brain and Cognition, 52(3), 353-363.
  23. Foulsham, T., Frost, E. ve Sage, L. (2018). Stable individual differences predict eye movements to the left, but not handedness or line bisection. Vision Research, 144, 38-46.
  24. Fujii, T., Fukatsu, R., Yamadori, A. ve Kimura, I. (1995). Effect of age on the line bisection test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17(6), 941-944.
  25. Galaburda, A. M., LeMay, M., Kemper, T. L. ve Geschwind, N. (1978). Right-left asymmetries in the brain. Science, 199 (4331), 852-856.
  26. Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B. ve Mangun, G. R. (2019). Attention. Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind içinde (5. baskı, s. 274-323). W.W. Norton & Company.
  27. Geschwind, N. (1970). The organization of language and the brain. Science, 170(3961), 940-944.
  28. Geschwind, N. ve Levitsky, W. (1968). Human brain: Left-right asymmetries in temporal speech region. Science, 161(3837), 186-187.
  29. Güneş, E., Nalçacı, E., Kalaycıoğlu, C., Çiçek, M. ve Kara, F. (2002). Çizgi bölme testi ve test-tekrar test güvenilirliği. Psikiyatri Psikoloji Psikofarmakoloji (3P) Dergisi, 10(1), 33-40.
  30. Halligan, P. W., Marshall, J. C. ve Wade, D. T. (1989). Visuospatial neglect: Underlying factors and test sensitivity. The Lancet, 334(8668), 908-911.
  31. Hatin, B., Sykes Tottenham, L. ve Oriet, C. (2012). The relationship between collisions and pseudoneglect: Is it right? Cortex, 48(8), 997-1008.
  32. Hausmann, M., Ergun, G., Yazgan, Y. ve Güntürkün, O. (2002). Sex differences in line bisection as a function of hand. Neuropsychologia, 40(3), 235-240.
  33. Hausmann, M., Waldie, K. E. ve Corballis, M. C. (2003a). Developmental changes in line bisection: A result of callosal maturation? Neuropsychology, 17(1), 155-160.
  34. Hausmann, M., Corballis, M. C. ve Farbi, M. (2003b). Line bisection in the split brain. Neuropsychology, 17(4), 602-609.
  35. Hécaen, H., De Agostini, M. ve Monzon-Montes, A. (1981). Cerebral organization in left-handers. Brain and Language, 12(2), 261-284.
  36. Ishihara, M., Keller, P. E., Rossetti, Y. ve Prinz, W. (2008). Horizontal spatial representations of time: Evidence for the STEARC effect. Cortex, 44(4), 454–461.
  37. Jewell, G. ve McCourt, M. E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38(1), 93-110.
  38. Josse, G. ve Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2004). Hemispheric specialization for language. Brain Research Reviews, 44(1), 1-12.
  39. Kallai, J., Páll, T., Topa, K. ve Zsidó, A. N. (2023). Physically real and virtual reality exposed line bisection response patterns: Visuospatial attention allocation in virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1176379.
  40. Karakaş, S. (2017). Prof. Dr. Sirel Karakaş psikoloji sözlüğü: Bilgisayar programı ve veritabanı. www.psikolojisozlugu.com (sürüm: 5.2.0/2022).
  41. Karnath, H. O. ve Rorden, C. (2012). The anatomy of spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia, 50(6), 1010-1017. Kerkhoff, G. (2001). Spatial hemineglect in humans. Progress in Neurobiology, 63(1), 1-27.
  42. Knecht, S., Dräger, B., Deppe, M., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Flöel, A., Ringelstein, E. B. ve Henningsen, H. (2000). Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain, 123(12), 2512-2518.
  43. Knecht, S., Dräger, B., Flöel, A., Lohmann, H., Breitenstein, C., Deppe, M., Henningsen, H., ve Ringelstein, E.-B. (2001). Behavioural relevance of atypical language lateralization in healthy subjects. Brain, 124(8), 1657–1665.
  44. Kolb, B., Whishaw, I. Q. ve Teskey, G. C. (2025). Beyin nasıl düşünür? H. Kafadar (Çev. Ed.) ve S. Şişman Bal (Çev). Beyin ve davranışa giriş (1. Baskı, s. 525-566) içinde. Palme Yayın Dağıtım. (Orijinal eser 2023 yılında yayımlanmıştır.)
  45. Kurt, M. ve Karakaş, S. (2000). Sağ serebral hemisferin bilişsel işlevlerine duyarlı nöropsikolojik testlerin özellikleri ve aralarındaki ilişkiler. 3P Dergisi, 8(4), 251-265.
  46. Levy, J. (1972). Lateral specialization of the human brain: Behavioral manifestations and possible evolutionary basis. J. Kriger (Ed.), The biology of behavior içinde. Oregon State University Press.
  47. Ludwig, K. ve Schenk, T. (2022). Definition: Pseudoneglect. Cortex, 155, 390-391.
  48. Luh, K. E. (1995). Line bisection and perceptual asymmetries in normal individuals: What you see is not what you get. Neuropsychology, 9(4), 435-448.
  49. Manning, L., Halligan, P. W. ve Marshall, J. C. (1990). Individual variation in line bisection: A study of normal subjects with application to the interpretation of visual neglect. Neuropsychologia, 28(7), 647-655.
  50. McCourt, M. ve Jewell, G. (1999). Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 37(7), 843-855.
  51. Mennemeier, M., Vezey, E., Chatterjee, A., Rapcsak, S. Z. ve Heilman, K. M. (1997). Contributions of the left and right cerebral hemispheres to line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 35(5), 703-715.
  52. Mesulam, M. M. (1981). A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect. Annals of Neurology, 10(4), 309-325.
  53. Mesulam, M. M. (2004). Davranışsal ve Kognitif Nörolojinin İlkeleri (2. Baskı). (İ. H. Gürvit, Çev. Ed.). Yelkovan Yayıncılık. (Orijinal eser 2000 yılında yayımlanmıştır.)
  54. Milner, A. D., Brechmann, M. ve Pagliarini, L. (1992). To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 30(6), 515-526.
  55. Mitchell, A. G., Kandt, P. O. ve McIntosh, R. D. (2022). On line bisection: Validity and reliability of online measures of pseudoneglect. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 27(4), 443-466.
  56. Molenberghs, P., Sale, M. V. ve Mattingley, J. B. (2012). Is there a critical lesion site for unilateral spatial neglect? A meta-analysis using activation likelihood estimation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 78.
  57. Muayqil, T. A., Al-Yousef, L. M., Al-Herbish, M. J., Al-Nafisah, M., Halawani, L. M., Al-Bader, S. S., Almohideb, F. A., Aljomah, L. S., Aljafen, B. N. ve Alanazy, M. H. (2021). Culturally influenced performance on tasks of line bisection and symbol cancellation in Arabs. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 28(3), 257-268.
  58. Ochando, A. ve Zago, L. (2018). What are the contributions of handedness, sighting dominance, hand used to bisect, and visuospatial line processing to the behavioral line bisection bias? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1688.
  59. Ocklenburg, S., Beste, C. ve Güntürkün, O. (2013). Handedness: A neurogenetic shift of perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(10, Part 2), 2788-2793.
  60. Ocklenburg, S., Beste, C., Arning, L., Peterburs, J. ve Güntürk-ün, O. (2014). The ontogenesis of language lateralization and its relation to handedness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 43, 191-198.
  61. Ocklenburg, S. ve Güntürkün, O. (2024). Spatial attention, neglect, and the right hemisphere. The lateralized brain: The neuroscience and evolution of hemispheric asymmetries içinde (2. baskı, s. 211-239). Academic Press.
  62. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113.
  63. Öktem, Ö. (2020). Nöropsikolojik değerlendirme. Davranış nörolojisi: Beyin-davranış ilişkilerinin organizasyon prensipleri sendromları ve hastalıkları içinde (2. baskı, s. 15-29). Nobel Tıp Kitabevi.
  64. Packheiser, J., Schmitz, J., Arning, L., Beste C., Güntürkün, O. ve Ocklenburg S. (2020). A large-scale estimate on the relationship between language and motor lateralization. Scientific Reports 10(1):13027, 1-10.
  65. Prasad, S. ve Berkowitz, A. L. (2014). Modified target cancellation in hemispatial neglect. Practical Neurology, 14(4), 277.
  66. Pujol, J., Deus, J., Losilla, J. M. ve Capdevila, A. (1999). Cerebral lateralization of language in normal left-handed people studied by functional MRI. Neurology, 52(5), 1038-1043.
  67. Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Kinsbourne, M. ve Moscovitch, M. (1990). Hemispheric control of spatial attention. Brain and Cognition, 12(2), 240-266.
  68. Roig, M. ve Cicero, F. (1994). Hemisphericity style, sex, and performance on a line-bisection task: An exploratory study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78(1), 115-120.
  69. Scarisbrick, D. J., Tweedy, J. R. ve Kuslansky, G. (1987). Hand preference and performance effects on line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 25(4), 695-699.
  70. Schenkenberg, T., Bradford, D. C. ve Ajax, E. T. (1980). Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurologic impairment. Neurology, 30(5), 509-517.
  71. Small, M., Cowey, A. ve Ellis, S. (1994). How lateralised is visuospatial neglect? Neuropsychologia, 32(4), 449-464.
  72. Stone, S. P., Halligan, P. W. ve Greenwood, R. J. (1993). The incidence of neglect phenomena and related disorders in patients with an acute right or left hemisphere stroke. Age and Ageing, 22(1), 46-52.
  73. Stone, S. P., Wilson, B., Wroot, A., Halligan, P. W., Lange, L. S., Marshall, J. C. ve Greenwood, R. J. (1991). The assessment of visuo-spatial neglect after acute stroke. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 54(4), 345-350.
  74. Szaflarski, J. P., Binder, J. R., Possing, E. T., McKiernan, K. A., Ward, B. D. ve Hammeke, T. A. (2002). Language lateralization in left-handed and ambidextrous people: fMRI data. Neurology, 59(2), 238-244.
  75. Şişman, S. (2014). Hemisferik asimetri, el tercihi ve cinsiyet: Sözel ve sözel olmayan nöropsikolojik test performansı [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  76. Şişman Bal, S. (2024). Bireysel farklılıklar: Hemisferik asimetri, el tercihi ve cinsiyet. C. H. Ongun ve S. Şandor (Ed.), Nöropsikoloji: Teoriden pratiğe ölçme ve değerlendirme içinde (s. 111-149). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  77. Şişman Bal, S. ve Alptekin, S. (2020, Kasım). The line bisection test: Effects of gender, handedness, hand-use, and scanning direction. Sözlü Sunum, 9th World Conference on Psychology and Sociology (PSY-SOC 2020), Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
  78. Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S. ve Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 515–557.
  79. Tzourio, N., Crivello, F., Mellet, E., Nkanga-Ngila, B. ve Mazoyer, B. (1998). Functional anatomy of dominance for speech comprehension in left handers vs. right handers. NeuroImage, 8(1), 1-16.
  80. Vallar, G. (1998). Spatial hemineglect in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(3), 87-97.
  81. Vallesi, A., Weisblatt, Y., Semenza, C. ve Shaki, S. (2014). Cultural modulations of space–time compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 666–669.
  82. Varnava, A. ve Halligan, P. W. (2009). Line bisection: Does introspection inform cognitive strategy? Neuropsychologia, 47(1), 280-283.
  83. Vossel, S., Eschenbeck, P., Weiss, P. H., Weidner, R., Saliger, J., Karbe, H. ve Fink, G. R. (2011). Visual extinction in relation to visuospatial neglect after right hemispheric stroke: Quantitative assessment and statistical lesion symptom mapping. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 82(8), 862-868.
  84. Weintraub, S. ve Mesulam, M. M. (1987). Right cerebral dominance in spatial attention: Further evidence based on ipsilateral neglect. Archives of Neurology, 44(6), 621-625.
  85. Werth, R. ve Pöppel, E. (1988). Compression and lateral shift of mental coordinate systems in a line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 26(5), 741-745.
  86. Wolfe, H. K. (1923). On the estimation of the middle of lines. The American Journal of Psychology, 34(3), 313-358.
  87. Zago, L., Petit, L., Jobard, G., Hay, J., Mazoyer, B., Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Karnath, H. O. ve Mellet, E. (2017). Pseudoneglect in line bisection judgement is associated with a modulation of right hemispheric spatial attention dominance in right handers. Neuropsychologia, 94, 75-83.