Superiority of the Left Cerebral Hemisphere in Word Recognition with Nonverbal Central Fixation

1984 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 895-898
Author(s):  
Stephen Meredith Williams
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Cerebral Hemisphere ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Left Cerebral Hemisphere ◽  
Bilateral Presentation ◽  
Fixation Task ◽  
The Right ◽  
Central Fixation

The right visual-field advantage for bilateral presentation put forward by McKeever and Huling was investigated. The central-fixation task was varied so that in one condition this task was nonverbal. Results gave some support for scanning-type explanations in this paradigm but over-all favoured Kinsbourne's activation-and-priming account.

Lateral Word Recognition: Effects of Unilateral and Bilateral Presentation, Asynchrony of Bilateral Presentation, and Forced Order of Report

1971 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 410-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter F. McKeever
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Bilateral Presentation

This experiment enquired: (1) whether right visual field (RVF) recognition superiority was greater in bilateral than in unilateral word presentation; (2) whether left field-favouring attentional or recall sets could be induced by presenting left visual field (LVF) words 20 msec prior to RVF words or by instructions to report LVF words prior to RVF words. Results showed: (1) all conditions studied yielded significant RVF superiority; (2) RVF superiority magnitude was significantly greater in bilateral than in unilateral presentation, suggesting the tenability of hypotheses that different mechanisms operate in these conditions; (3) neither earlier delivery nor earlier report of LVF words altered the pattern of RVF superiority in bilateral presentation, the later result demonstrating that differential receptive organization rather than differential recall of the two stimuli is responsible for RVF superiority in bilateral presentation.

Lateralized Visual-Field Inattention in Schizophrenia

1994 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 699-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel S. Lobel ◽  
Rex M. Swanda ◽  
Miklos F. Losonczy
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Cerebral Hemisphere ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Verbal Processing ◽  
Cognitive Research ◽  
Schizophrenic Patients ◽  
Hemispheric Functioning ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Verbal Functioning ◽  
The Right

Numerous studies have shown impaired verbal functioning in schizophrenic patients as compared with normals. The verbal deficits are generally attributed to damage of the left cerebral hemisphere. This attribution is based on literature which suggests that verbal processing is primarily mediated by the left hemisphere in right-handed humans. This study explored left-hemispheric integrity directly by assessing sustained attention in both the left and right hemispheres of 40 schizophrenic patients with the Weintraub Cancellation Tasks. Patients made significantly more errors of omission on the right visual field than on the left. These results are consistent with cognitive research in schizophrenia by demonstrating selective left-hemispheric impairment relative to right-hemispheric functioning.

Some Factors in the Recognition of Tachistoscopically Presented Alphabetical Arrays

1972 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Fudin ◽  
John T. Kenny
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Retinal Location ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Central Fixation Point ◽  
Information Delay ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Central Fixation

Six-letter nonsense arrays, constructed from a 12-letter population which was not made known to 20 Ss, were tachistoscopically shown successively in the right visual field (RVF) and left visual field (LVF) at three displacements from a central fixation point. Recognition scores were higher for stimuli in the RVF at each displacement. In each case RVF superiority was limited to letters in the first array-half (letters 1, 2, 3). These results agree with prior findings obtained with targets made up of six letters known to S (Fudin, 1969). Reportability of a tachistoscopically exposed letter, in part, is a function of the relationship between its retinal location and the delay before it is scanned. Location determines the amount of information a letter contains before it starts to fade-out (the more acute the area, the greater the information), delay determines the period of information dissipation prior to scanning. These ideas were used to explain the contrast between high error scores for middle-array letters in the bow-shaped error curves found in this experiment and the low values often reported for these letters when targets are shown across fixation, and the finding that the difference between error scores for letters in the first and second array-halves was greater for targets at each displacement in the right than the left visual field.

Relations between Attentional and Intentional Neural Systems

1995 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 947-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianpaolo Basso ◽  
Paolo Nichelli
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Cerebral Hemisphere ◽  
Arm Movement ◽  
Neural Systems ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Contralateral Hemisphere ◽  
Lateral Direction ◽  
Response Latencies ◽  
Rightward Movement ◽  
The Right

This study explored whether preparing an arm movement influences detection of a visual stimulus We cued subjects to respond with either a rightward or a leftward movement to the appearance of a stimulus located either in the centre, in the left, or in the right visual field. Programming a movement toward a lateral direction enhanced visual attention at that side. Rightward movements were associated with an attentional cost only for responses to a central location, while leftward movements slowed response latencies to both central and right-sided stimuli. We hypothesized that programming a rightward movement depends on the activation of intentional centers in either cerebral hemisphere. On the contrary, leftward movements might be only driven by the contralateral hemisphere.

The Contribution of Attention to the Right Visual Field Advantage for Word Recognition

1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E.R. Nicholls ◽  
Amanda G. Wood
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
The Right

Recognition of Alphabetical Arrays Presented in the Right and Left Visual Fields

1969 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Fudin
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Cell Assembly ◽  
A Cell ◽  
Experimental Findings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Central Fixation

Six-letter nonsense arrays were tachistoscopically presented successively in the right visual field (RVF) and left visual field (LVF) at four different displacements from a central fixation point (FP) to 20 Ss. Recognition scores were significantly greater for material exposed in the RVF at each of the first three displacements and for the average of all displacements. In each case the higher recognition score for stimuli in the RVF was limited to letters located in the left-array half (letters 1, 2 and 3). An investigation into the dynamics of scanning indicated that these three letters are more advantageously situated when presented in the RVF. This methodological inconsistency brings into question the use of the results obtained from the successive mode of stimulus presentation as evidence for Hebb's notion of a cell assembly. Several ideas concerning the dynamics of scanning which emerged from the experimental findings were discussed.

scholarly journals Lateralized Repetition Priming for Unfamiliar Faces

2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Martin ◽  
Louise K. Nind ◽  
C. Neil Macrae
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Repetition Priming ◽  
Cerebral Hemisphere ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Prior Exposure ◽  
Divided Visual Field ◽  
Left Cerebral Hemisphere ◽  
Field Methodology ◽  
The Right ◽  
Unfamiliar Faces

Repetition priming (RP) is the ability to recognize a stimulus more rapidly as a result of prior exposure to the item. Recent research examining the neuroanatomical basis of this effect has demonstrated RP for familiar faces presented to the right but not to the left cerebral hemisphere. Extending this line of enquiry, the current research considered whether similar effects emerge when unfamiliar faces are the stimuli of interest. Using a divided-visual-field methodology, RP for unfamiliar faces in the left and the right hemispheres was assessed. The results revealed that RP: (i) only emerges in the right hemisphere; (ii) is evident regardless of whether the lateralized presentation of unfamiliar faces occurs at study or at test and (iii) occurs only when hair is cropped from the faces. The theoretical implications of these findings are considered.

Left-Cerebral Hemisphere Superiority in Tachistoscopic Word-Recognition Performances

1970 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 763-766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter F. McKeever ◽  
Maurice D. Huling
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Cerebral Hemisphere ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Left Cerebral Hemisphere ◽  
Right Cerebral Hemisphere ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Efficient Route ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Brain

Under conditions of monocular unihemispheric projection of word stimuli to the brain, 10 normal Ss uniformly showed superior word recognition ability of the left, as opposed to the right, cerebral hemisphere. Left-hemisphere recognitions were significantly more frequent than right-hemisphere recognitions for both eyes, but the extent of left-hemisphere superiority was significantly greater for the left eye. The results support the hypothesis that words projected to the right hemisphere traverse a less efficient route to the language centers of the left hemisphere.

scholarly journals Orthographic neighbourhood effects during lateralised lexical decision are abolished with bilateral presentation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regan Mills ◽  
Zoe Victoria Joan Woodhead ◽  
Adam James Parker
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Stimulation ◽  
Hemispheric Dominance ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Neighbourhood Effects ◽  
Bilateral Presentation ◽  
Large N ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Better Than

Words presented to the right visual field (RVF) are processed more rapidly than those in the left visual field (LVF), presumably because of more direct links to the language dominant left cerebral hemisphere. This effect is moderated by a word’s orthographic neighbourhood size (N), with LVF facilitation and RVF inhibition for words with large N. Across two experiments, we sought to further examine lateralised N effects. Experiment 1 examined how hemispheric dominance for language influenced lateralised N effects, in 140 left-handers using a visual half-field task with bilateral presentation. Neither typically nor atypically lateralized participants showed the expected N effect, making the results ambiguous: it could be that left-handers fail to show N effects, or the effect could be abolished by some procedural aspect. Experiment 2 looked to test these options by testing 56 right-handers who responded to the same stimulus set under the original bilateral presentation condition and under unilateral presentation. N effects were found under unilateral but not bilateral presentation. We had adopted bilateral presentation because it had been recommended as better than unilateral presentation for controlling fixation and visual stimulation; our results indicate that this is not a minor methodological modification: it can dramatically affect lateralized effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document