Talk:Homonymous hemianopsia

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Homonymous hemianopsia. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

"A stroke on the entire right side of the brain, in addition to producing a homonymous hemianopsia, will also lead to the syndrome of Hemispatial neglect." I am not a neurologist but I do know a bit about the neurology of vision. As I understand it, hemianopsia is the result of occipital lobe damage, and Hemispatial neglect results from right parietal lobe damage. Of course, both areas, being roughly adjacent, might well get damaged at the same time, leading to both conditions, but they are far from being the entire right side of the brain. If the whole right side were damaged (frontal and temporal cortex, cerebellum, ...) I am pretty sure that you would see some much more severe symptoms than these. The quoted sentence may not be false, but surely it is very misleading. Treharne (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology section doesn't address what to me is quite a bizarre feature of the name. 'Homonymous' doesn't translate as 'same', it translates as 'of the same name'. This would seem like unnecessary pedantry if it weren't for the fact that the article has an etymology section. As it stands, I would be interested to know why it has ended up with such an inappropriate name. (My knowledge of the classical languages is almost non-existent, but I'm sure there must have been a better-suited 'homo' word.) Just thinking about it now, the name would make sense if the hemianopia affected the field with the same name in each side, -ie bitemporal or binasal hemianopia. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Cry me a river, I suppose. Melaena (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't just impose two demilunes as an opaque Photoshop layer over a photograph of Paris and call it hemianopsia. Hemianopsia does not produce dysconjugate gaze, so fixation of gaze in each eye should result in the same scene in each eye, apart a parallax of 6 cm or so. Given the far distance depicted in this scene of Paris, the parallax is inconsequential and hence each demilune should contain the same image. 05:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.13.48 (talk)