Does Post-Exposural Directional Scanning Offer a Sufficient Explanation for Lateral Differences in Tachistoscopic Recognition?

1974 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter F. McKeever
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Cerebral Dominance ◽  
Tachistoscopic Recognition ◽  
Recognition Reaction Time

White's recent criticisms of experiments by McKeever and Huling are discussed. The points are made that, contrary to White's claim, McKeever and Huling never attributed all obtainable lateral recognition differences to effects of cerebral dominance and that White's criticisms in no way establish a directional scanning hypothesis as compatible with the results obtained under the conditions of the McKeever and Huling experiments. That the scanning hypothesis also fails to account for many other results obtained in recognition and recognition reaction time studies is indicated.

Integration of Post-Exposural Directional Scanning and Cerebral Dominance Explanations of Lateral Differences in Tachistoscopic Recognition

1976 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Fudin ◽  
Catherine C. Masterson
Keyword(s):  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Cerebral Dominance ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Methodological Considerations ◽  
Tachistoscopic Recognition ◽  
The Right

Post-exposural directional scanning and cerebral dominance are major postulates which account for lateral differences in tachistoscopic perception. These ideas can be integrated when tachistoscopic perception is viewed as a short-term memory task. Briefly exposed stimuli not only have to be scanned, but also rehearsed, subvocally, before they can be encoded. Since most Ss are left-hemisphere dominant for language, scanned information arriving in the right hemisphere has to be sent to the left hemisphere for rehearsal. This transmission effects a loss of scanned information because it is held in a rapidly dissipating storage. These ideas account for lateral differences found with vertically and horizontally oriented targets, but methodological considerations are discussed which indicate that these notions are more clearly demonstrable with the former than latter displays.

Latency of Vocalization Onset: Stutterers Versus Nonstutterers

1976 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 481-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Woodruff Starkweather ◽  
Paula Hirschman ◽  
Robert S. Tannenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Stimulus ◽  
Internal Clock ◽  
Cerebral Dominance ◽  
Comparable Amount ◽  
Auditory Dysfunction ◽  
The Difference

Eleven stutterers and matched controls were asked to produce as quickly as possible each of 26 different syllables following a visual stimulus. Three trials were given for each syllable. Responses were filtered to remove supraglottally produced sounds, and the time between the visual stimulus and the onset of vocalization was measured by a voice-operated relay and a computer’s internal clock. The results suggested that stutterers are slower in initiating vocalization across a wide variety of syllables, and the difference averages about 65 msec. Furthermore, when phonologic conditions delayed voice onset by a comparable amount, the stutterers gained enough time so that no significant differences were observed between the two groups. The results are interpreted as suggesting that auditory dysfunction cannot be a cause for slower vocalization reaction time in stutterers but that either vocal dysfunction or a lack of cerebral dominance may be responsible for these differences.

scholarly journals A novel clinical test of recognition reaction time in healthy adults.

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 249-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
James T. Eckner ◽  
James K. Richardson ◽  
Hogene Kim ◽  
David B. Lipps ◽  
James A. Ashton-Miller
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Clinical Test ◽  
Recognition Reaction Time
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document