Object-based neglect in number processing

Table 1 Demographic and clinical data of all participants

	Sex	Age (yrs)	Education (yrs)	Time post-lesion (weeks)	Lesion etiology	Lesion site	Affected blood vessel
Neglect group
R.E.	Female	71	8	4	IS	RH	MCA
L.A.	Male	55	13	6	HS (BGH)	RH	MCA
R.A.	Female	63	8	5	HS (IP)	RH	MCA
K.W.	Male	49	13	6	IS	RH	MCA
P.A.	Male	70	11	13	IS	RH	MCA
F.J.	Male	54	11	7	HS (BGH)	RH	MCA
Patient control group
C.K.	Female	68	7	6	IS	RH	MCA
S.G.	Male	55	13	10	IS	RH	MCA
G.G.	Female	66	10	15	IS	RH	MCA
J.G.	Male	52	17	38	IS	RH	MCA
F.E.	Male	68	17	11	HS	RH	SDH
P.T.	Male	54	12	5	IS	RH	MCA
Healthy control group
L.I.	Female	72	10
L.J.	Male	56	11
D.M.	Female	60	12
S.P.	Male	51	11
L.G.	Male	71	8
R.W.	Male	56	12

RH - right hemisphere; IS - ischemic stroke; HS - hemorrhagic stroke; SDH - subdural hemorrhage; IP – intraparietal; MCA - middle cerebral artery; BGH - basal ganglia hemorrhage.
Please note that there are no significant differences for demographical and clinical variables. The neglect patient group does not differ from the control patient group regarding age [t(5) = 0.04; p = .97], education [t(5) = 1.14; p = .31] or time post-lesion [t(5) = 1.53; p = .19]. Equally, the neglect patient group does not differ from the healthy controls regarding age [t(5) = 0.13; p = .90] or education [t(5) < 0.01; p = 1]. Consequently, there is also no difference between the two control groups as regards age [t(5) = 0.11; p = .92] and education [t(5) = 1.24; p = .27].

ISSN: 1744-9081