136
within both the LHD and RHD patients, the differences
between the shock and no-shock conditions are very small.
When subjects were divided into anterior versus posterior
lesions regardless of side of lesion, the percentage of
responses were almost identical.
SCR Magnitude
Similar to the trends observed for percentage of SCRs,
the magnitude of SCRs was greater in LHD patients with
anterior lesion compared to LHD patients with posterior
lesions. Again, the opposite trend was observed in the RHD
patients. Also, as noted in the examination of percentage
of SCRs, the relative to the anterior/posterior differences,
the differences between the shock and no-shock conditions is
quite small. When the anterior and posterior groups of RHD
and LHD patients were combined, the posterior group had a
greater magnitude of response.
The Effect of Neglect
To examine the effect of neglect on SCR magnitude
during the shock task, the SCRs of the right hemisphere
subjects with neglect and/or extinction (n=5) were compared
to the LHD and CONs. Similar to the overall findings, the
LHD [T(1,34) = -2.15, P <.05, (mean=8.99, sd=13.13)] and the
RHD subjects with neglect [T(l,27) = 2.07, P < .05, (5.32,
sd=5.45)] had significantly smaller SCRs during the shock
condition compared to the CONs (mean=20.52, sd=16.03). Also
consistent with the overall findings, there were no