{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011421319796954314, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.261904761904762, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Which Differences in Priming Effect Between Neglect and Hemianopia? A Case Description of a Bilateral Brain-Lesioned Patient

ABSTRACT It is widely known that visuospatial neglect and hemianopia maybe superimposed. We considered the differences in implicit information processing which is effective in patients with neglect but not with hemianopia. We then hypothesize that a prime-word in the neglected field should determine a semantic activation effect but not in a blind hemifield. Moreover eye movements could provide further details. In this work we considered a patient with a bilateral with the presence of either a left visual neglect and a right homonymous hemianopia. Our results supported implicit information processing in the space affected by neglect but not by hemianopia.