Lateralized Processing of Faces

2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Bombari ◽  
Nora Preuss ◽  
Fred W. Mast
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Configural Processing ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Divided Visual Field ◽  
Configural Information ◽  
Test Face ◽  
The Right ◽  
Featural Processing

We investigated the lateralized processing of featural and configural information in face recognition in two divided visual field studies. In Experiment 1, participants matched the identity of a cue face containing either featural (scrambled faces) or configural (blurred faces) information with an intact test face presented subsequently either in the right visual field (RVF) or in the left visual field (LVF). Unilateral presentation was controlled by monitoring eye movements. The results show an advantage of the left hemisphere (LH) over the right hemisphere (RH) for featural processing and a specialization of the RH for configural compared to featural processing. In Experiment 2, we focused on configural processing and its relationship to familiarity. Either learned or novel test faces were presented in the LVF or the RVF. Participants recognized learned faces better when presented in the LVF than in the RVF, suggesting that the RH has an advantage in the recognition of learned faces. Because the recognition of familiar faces relies strongly on configural information ( Buttle & Raymond, 2003 ), we argue that the advantage of the RH over the LH in configural processing is a function of familiarity.

Vocal Reaction Times to Tachistoscopically Presented High- and Low-Frequency Verbs: Some Evidence for Selective Minor Hemisphere Linguistic Analysis

1988 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Rastatter ◽  
Catherine Loren
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Intact Brain ◽  
The Right

The current study investigated the capacity of the right hemisphere to process verbs using a paradigm proven reliable for predicting differential, minor hemisphere lexical analysis in the normal, intact brain. Vocal reaction times of normal subjects were measured to unilaterally presented verbs of high and of low frequency. A significant interaction was noted between the stimulus items and visual fields. Post hoc tests showed that vocal reaction times to verbs of high frequency were significantly faster following right visual-field presentations (right hemisphere). No significant differences in vocal reaction time occurred between the two visual fields for the verbs of low frequency. Also, significant differences were observed between the two types of verbs following left visual-field presentation but not the right. These results were interpreted to suggest that right-hemispheric analysis was restricted to the verbs of high frequency in the presence of a dominant left hemisphere.

Categorical and Metric Spatial Processes Distinguished by Task Demands and Practice

1999 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie T. Banich ◽  
Kara D. Federmeier
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Spatial Relations ◽  
Task Demands ◽  
Spatial Processing ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Metric Distance ◽  
The Right ◽  
Categorical Spatial Relations

In this study we examined Kosslyn's (1987) claim that the right hemisphere exhibits a relative superiority for processing metric spatial relations, whereas the left hemisphere exhibits a relative superiority for processing categorical spatial relations. In particular, we examined whether some failures to observe strong visual field (VF) advantages in previous studies might be due to practice effects that allowed individuals to process tasks in alternative manners (e.g., to process a metric task using a categorical strategy). We used two versions of a task previously employed by Hellige and Michimata (1989) in which individuals judge the metric (distance) or categorical (above/below) spatial relations between a bar and a dot. In one version, the position of the bar was held static. In another, the bar's position varied. This manipulation prevented participants from using the computer screen as a reference frame, forcing them to compute the spatial relationships on the basis of the relevant items only (i.e., the bar and the dot). In the latter, but not the former version of the task we obtained evidence supporting Kosslyn's hypothesis, namely, a significant right visual field (RVF) advantage for categorical spatial processing and a trend toward a left visual field (LVF) advantage for metric spatial processing. Furthermore, the pattern of results for trials on which information was presented centrally (CVF trials) was similar to that observed on RVF trials, whereas the pattern for trials in which identical information was presented in each visual field (BVF trials) was similar to that observed on LVF trials. Such a pattern is consistent with Kosslyn's suggestion that categorical processing is better suited for cells with small receptive fields and metric processing for cells with larger receptive fields.

Hemispheric Processing of Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Relations in the Absence of Low Spatial Frequencies

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matia Okubo ◽  
Chikashi Michimata
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Spatial Frequency ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Spatial Relation ◽  
Spatial Relations ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Categorical Task ◽  
The Right ◽  
Coordinate Spatial Relations

Right-handed participants performed the categorical and coordinate spatial relation judgments on stimuli presented to either the left visual field—right hemisphere (LVF-RH) or the right visual field—left hemisphere (RVF-LH). The stimulus patterns were formulated either by bright dots or by contrast-balanced dots. When the stimuli were bright, an RVF-LH advantage was observed for the categorical task, whereas an LVF-RH advantage was observed for the coordinate task. When the stimuli were contrast balanced, the RVF-LH advantage was observed for the categorical task, but the LVF-RH advantage was eliminated for the coordinate task. Because the contrast-balanced dots are largely devoid of low spatial frequency content, these results suggest that processing of low spatial frequency is responsible for the right hemisphere advantage for the coordinate spatial processing.

Summation Priming and Coarse Semantic Coding in the Right Hemisphere

1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Beeman ◽  
Rhonda B. Friedman ◽  
Jordan Grafman ◽  
Enrique Perez ◽  
Sherri Diamond ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Input Word ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Semantic Fields ◽  
The Right ◽  
Prime Target ◽  
Strong Associate ◽  
Target Words

There are now numerous observations of subtle right hemisphere (RH) contributions to language comprehension. It has been suggested that these contributions reflect coarse semantic coding in the RH. That is, the RH weakly activates large semantic fields—including concepts distantly related to the input word—whereas the left hemisphere (LH) strongly activates small semantic fields—limited to concepts closely related to the input (Beeman, 1993a,b). This makes the RH less effective at interpreting single words, but more sensitive to semantic overlap of multiple words. To test this theory, subjects read target words preceded by either “Summation” primes (three words each weakly related to the target) or Unrelated primes (three unrelated words), and target exposure duration was manipulated so that subjects correctly named about half the target words in each hemifield. In Experiment 1, subjects benefited more from Summation primes when naming target words presented to the left visual field-RH (Ivf-RH) than when naming target words presented to the right visual field-LH (rvf-LH), suggesting a RH advantage in coarse semantic coding. In Experiment 2, with a low proportion of related prime-target trials, subjects benefited more from “Direct” primes (one strong associate flanked by two unrelated words) than from Summation primes for rvf-LH target words, indicating that the LH activates closely related information much more strongly than distantly related information. Subjects benefited equally from both prime types for Ivf-RH target words, indicating that the RH activates closely related information only slightly more strongly, at best, than distantly related information. This suggests that the RH processes words with relatively coarser coding than the LH, a conclusion consistent with a recent suggestion that the RH coarsely codes visual input (Kosslyn, Chabris, Mar-solek, & Koenig, 1992).

Electroencephalographic Activity in a Flanker Interference Task Using Japanese Orthography

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. 971-979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuhei Yamaguchi ◽  
Genya Toyoda ◽  
Jiang Xu ◽  
Shotai Kobayashi ◽  
Avishai Henik
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Hemispheric Specialization ◽  
Late Phase ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Interference Effects ◽  
Interference Task ◽  
Dorsolateral Prefrontal ◽  
The Right

The neural activities for color word interference effects were investigated using event-related brain potentials (ERPs) recorded in a flanker-type interference task. Kanji words (Japanese morphograms) and kana words (Japanese phono-grams) were used as the flanker stimuli to obtain insights about hemispheric specialization for processing two types of Japanese orthographies. Interference effects in reaction time were larger when kanji words were presented in the left visual field and when kana words were in the right visual field. ERPs were modulated by the incongruent flankers, which generated a negative ERP component with the different onset and offset depending on flanker attributes. Consistent with the behavioral data, the interference-related negativity was observed for kanji words presented in the left visual field and for kana words in the right visual field. The negativity distributed maximally over the fronto-central site. The early part of the negativity distributed strongly over the frontal midline area, whereas it extended bilaterally over the frontal area in the late phase. The present results support the view of preferential processing of kanji in the right hemisphere and that of kana in the left hemisphere. The temporal profile of scalp topographies for the interference-related neural activity suggests that the medial and dorsolateral prefrontal regions may be involved in maintaining attentional set and conflict resolution.

Right Hemisphere Memory Bias Does Not Extend to Involuntary Memories for Negative Scenes

Perception ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Ella K. Moeck ◽  
Nicole A. Thomas ◽  
Melanie K. T. Takarangi
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Memory Bias ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Hemispheric Differences ◽  
Involuntary Memory ◽  
Involuntary Memories ◽  
The Right

Attention is unequally distributed across the visual field. Due to greater right than left hemisphere activation for visuospatial attention, people attend slightly more to the left than the right side. As a result, people voluntarily remember visual stimuli better when it first appears in the left than the right visual field. But does this effect—termed a right hemisphere memory bias—also enhance involuntary memory? We manipulated the presentation location of 100 highly negative images (chosen to increase the likelihood that participants would experience any involuntary memories) in three conditions: predominantly leftward (right hemisphere bias), predominantly rightward (left hemisphere bias), or equally in both visual fields (bilateral). We measured subsequent involuntary memories immediately and for 3 days after encoding. Contrary to predictions, biased hemispheric processing did not affect short- or long-term involuntary memory frequency or duration. Future research should measure hemispheric differences at retrieval, rather than just encoding.

Functional Hemispheric Asymmetry and Belief in ESP: Towards a “Neuropsychology of Belief”

1993 ◽  
Vol 77 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1299-1308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Brugger ◽  
Alex Gamma ◽  
René Muri ◽  
Markus Schafer ◽  
Kirsten I. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Hemispheric Asymmetry ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Verbal Tasks ◽  
Hemisphere Dominance ◽  
The Right

30 right-handed subjects were given a lateralized tachistoscopic lexical-decision task. Subjects' belief in extrasensory perception (ESP) was assessed with a single six-point scale; 16 subjects were designated as believers in ESP and 14 subjects as nonbelievers. Believers in ESP did not exhibit a hemispheric asymmetry for the task while nonbelievers exhibited the expected right visual-field/left-hemisphere dominance documented in the literature. Believers' lack of asymmetry was not caused by an impaired left-hemisphere performance but rather by a significantly enhanced lexical-decision accuracy in the left visual field/right hemisphere compared to nonbelievers. These results are compatible with previous studies indicating a correlation between belief in ESP and a bias for right-hemisphere processing. Moreover, the results are relevant for a discussion of an association between paranormal beliefs and schizotypy: highly schizotypal individuals are not only particularly prone to believe in ESP but are also known to show an attenuation of hemispheric asymmetries in lateralized verbal tasks due to an enhanced contribution of the right hemisphere. We suggest that the neurological basis of delusion-like beliefs may involve a release of right-hemisphere function from left-hemisphere control and sketch the focus of research for a future “neuropsychology of belief.”

Parallel but Temporally Displaced Visual Half-Field Metacontrast Functions

1974 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter F. McKeever ◽  
Max Suberi
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Stimulus Onset Asynchrony ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Field Function ◽  
Processing Delay ◽  
The Right ◽  
Onset Asynchrony

Using a classic letter-ring metacontrast paradigm, left and right visual field meta-contrast functions were separately determined. The parallel U-shaped recognition functions for both half-fields were found to interact differentially with stimulus onset asynchrony, the left visual field function being displaced by 13 ms toward longer test stimulus-masking stimulus separations. This result was consistent with the hypothesis of longer processing time requirements for verbal stimuli delivered to the right than to the left hemisphere. This indicates that the neural locus (loci) responsible for left visual field verbal processing delay is (are) capable of mediating metacontrast phenomena. It was tentatively concluded that a relative processing delay within the right hemisphere underlies the differing visual half-field metacontrast interaction with stimulus onset asynchrony.

scholarly journals Exploration of the Hemispheric Differences in Number Processing of the Brain

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-61
Author(s):  
Aaron Wyland Walters
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Reaction Time Data ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Hemispheric Differences ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Central Target ◽  
The Right

Abstract The current study explored how reaction time and accuracy differed in the left and right visual fields by altering various dot clusters in both number and organization. Researchers have hypothesized that the left hemisphere uses counting to judge small, disorganized clusters of objects accurately and that the right hemisphere uses estimation to judge clusters organized in geometric shape accurately. The current study tested both visual fields of participant’s with organized and unorganized clusters of dots. Dots were clustered between 3 and 12. The clusters were presented on separate sides of a computer screen to analyze visual field differences in counting and estimation. A central target was presented on the screen to maintain central focus for the visual fields. Data from 40 participants (30 men, 10 women) from a small liberal arts college indicated that when clusters reached between 7 and 8 dots, organization in the right visual field created inaccuracy in judgment. Reaction time data indicated that as number level increased, reaction time slowed. Reaction time data also showed that organization slowed reaction times in both visual fields. These data indicated that different numerical judgment abilities do exist within the hemispheres.

Attention and Hemispheric Differences in Reaction Time during Simultaneous Audio-Visual Tasks

1973 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 404-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gina Geffen ◽  
J. L. Bradshaw ◽  
N. C. Nettleton
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Auditory Task ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Hemispheric Differences ◽  
Language Functions ◽  
The Right

The effect of different types of competing auditory tasks on laterality differences in visual perception was investigated. Right-handed subjects were presented with digits which occurred randomly in the left or right visual fields. They responded vocally to previously specified digits in a go, no-go reaction time situation. In the absence of any competing auditory task, digits presented in the right visual field were processed more quickly. This visual field difference in reaction time was in the same direction while subjects performed a secondary musical task. However, when a secondary verbal task had to be performed, digits in the left visual field received faster responses. The results support the view that the right hemisphere is capable of some language functions, and that hemispheric differences in performance have at their basis a quantitative asymmetry, which can be reversed even in normal subjects by overloading their limited capacity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document