ON THE NATURE OF AUDITORY NEGLECT - A REPLY TO HUGDAHL AND WESTER

We respond to the points raised by Hugdahl and Wester (1994) and argue that a definition of auditory neglect must be based not on consideration of lesion location and extension but on a theoretical understanding of the mechanisms held to underlie neglect in the auditory modality. A first requirement is to describe the phenomenon that has to be explained. An ear extinction effect in dichotic listening, even considered along with the site of brain damage, does not provide sufficient justification for the effect to be attributed to ''neglect.''