137
significant differences between the RHD and LHD groups
[T(l,15) = .595, P = .5609] .
The SCRs of the PHD subjects with clear neglect (n=3),
excluding the subjects with evidence of extinction only,
were compared to the LHD group and the CONs. In this
analysis, the RHD group was not significantly different from
the CONs [T(1,25) = 1.99, P = .0566], although the
difference approached significance. However, the mean for
the RHD group with neglect was extremely small (mean=1.667,
sd=2.887) compared to the overall mean of the RHD subjects
(mean=5.15, sd=4.56), suggesting that subjects with neglect
demonstrate a greater impairment in SCR responding in
anticipation of shock. As will be described below, two of
the three subjects with neglect were non-responders. Since
the number of subjects with neglect is quite small, however,
the above findings need to be interpreted with caution.
Individual Case Studies
To examine individual differences in SCR and the
dissociation between SCR and verbal report, each subjects
percentage of SCRs and magnitude of SCRs during the shock
and no-shock conditions, along with verbal report change
scores are presented in Table 4-13 and 4-14.
Non-Responders
Within the RHD group, 36% of the subjects (4/11) were
non-responders. Of the 4 non responders in the RHD group, 3
had lesions involving the supramarginal gyrus and angular