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.

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.

Vocal Reaction Times of Stuttering Subjects to Tachistoscopically Presented Concrete and Abstract Words

1987 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Rastatter ◽  
Carl Dell
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Functional Localization ◽  
Past Data ◽  
Abstract Words ◽  
The Right

The present study was an attempt to investigate further the issues pertaining to cerebral organization for visual language processing in the stuttering population. Employing a lexical decision task, vocal reaction times were obtained for a group of 14 stutterers to unilateral, tachistoscopically presented concrete and abstract words. Results of an analysis of variance showed that a significant interaction occurred between visual fields and stimuli. Posthoc tests showed that the right hemisphere was superior for analyzing the concrete words while the left hemisphere was responsible for processing the abstract items. Compared to past data from normal subjects, these findings were interpreted as suggesting that some form of linguistic competition may exist between the two hemispheres, possibly reflecting a disturbance in functional localization in the stuttering population.

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.

Visual-Field Asymmetries in Letter Recognition: Evidence for Asymmetry in Early Visual Registration

1979 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-191
Author(s):  
Colin Pitblado ◽  
Michael Petrides ◽  
Gary Riccio
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Recognition Accuracy ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Letter Recognition ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Cerebral Asymmetry ◽  
Exposure Field ◽  
The Right

Two experiments on visual-field differences in tachistoscopic letter recognition are described. In the first, a bright pre-exposure field with a black fixation point was used, and the conventionally expected dominance of the right visual field was found. However, a large number of “blank” trials were observed, in which subjects completely failed to detect the presence of the flashed target. These “blanks” were themselves significantly asymmetric between visual fields, suggesting that asymmetry in early stimulus registration may play an unsuspected role in typical measures of cerebral asymmetry in recognition accuracy. This was confirmed in a second experiment in which use of dark pre-exposure fields eliminated “blanks” and led to higher over-all accuracy, with no visual-field differences. Implications for interpretation of laterality data with normal subjects are discussed.

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.

Influence of Vocabulary-Age on Unilateral Picture-Naming Reaction Times of Normal Subjects

1991 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 1047-1054 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Rastatter ◽  
Richard McGuire ◽  
Gail Scukanec
Keyword(s):  
Picture Naming ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Clinical Literature ◽  
The Right ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Developmental Hierarchy

The present study measured naming reaction times of normal subjects to unilaterally presented pictures corresponding to vocabulary levels of < 5.5, 9.5–10.5, and >18.0 years of age. An analysis of variance of latencies showed a significant interaction between visual fields and stimuli. Post hoc tests were interpreted to suggest that the normal right hemisphere was capable of performing certain differential picture encoding operations up to 10.5 years of age and not beyond. Also, unlike the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere does not appear to be organized on a developmental hierarchy, which corresponds with the clinical literature.

scholarly journals Right hemisphere superiority for executive control of attention

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfredo Spagna ◽  
Tae Hyeong Kim ◽  
Tingting Wu ◽  
Jin Fan
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Spatial Orienting ◽  
Conflict Effect ◽  
Hemisphere Dominance ◽  
The Right

AbstractOver forty years have passed since the first evidence showing the unbalanced attentional allocation of humans across the two visual fields, and since then, a wealth of behavioral, neurophysiological, and clinical data increasingly showed a right hemisphere dominance for orienting of attention. However, inconsistent evidence exists regarding the right-hemisphere dominance for executive control of attention, possibly due to a lack of consideration of its dynamics with the alerting and orienting functions. In this study, we used a version of the Attentional Network Test with lateralized presentation of the stimuli to the left visual field (processed by the right hemisphere, RH) and right visual field (processed by the left hemisphere, LH) to examine visual field differences in executive control of attention under conditions of alerting or orienting. Analyses of behavioral performance (reaction time and error rate) showed a more efficient executive control (reduced conflict effect) in the RH compared to the LH for the reaction time, under conditions of increased alerting and of informative spatial orienting. These results demonstrate the right-hemisphere superiority for executive control, and that this effect depends on the activation of the alerting and orienting functions.

Cognitive Arithmetic: Evidence for Right Hemispheric Mediation in an Elementary Component Stage

1980 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert N. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Spatial Order ◽  
Elementary Component ◽  
Cognitive Arithmetic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Field Errors

Earlier studies involving the lateralization of arithmetic abilities have provided evidence for both right and left hemisphere superiorities. It is argued here that part of this inconsistency could be due to the complexity of the arithmetic computations which have been examined. The present studies examined a subprocess shown to be involved in more complex tasks, such as subtraction. The subprocess is the identification of which of two numbers is greater, and was tested by the flashing of a pair of digits to either the left or right visual field. Errors, reaction-times to make a decision, and examination of hand × visual field interactions all indicated that this subprocess is mediated by the right hemisphere. Correlational analysis was used to identify the operations underlying the observed lateralization of this ability. This analysis indicated that an operation indexed by the spatial order in which the digits were presented was effective in the right hemisphere but not the left hemisphere. Speculations on the nature of these operations were presented.

Categorical versus Coordinate Spatial Processing: Effects of Blurring and Hemispheric Asymmetry

1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Cowin ◽  
Joseph B. Hellige
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Information ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Spatial Processing ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Horizontal Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Categorical Task ◽  
The Right

The present experiment examined the effects of dioptric blurring on the performance of two different spatial processing tasks using the same visual stimuli. One task (the above/below, categorical task) required subjects to indicate whether a dot was above or below a horizontal line. The other task (the coordinate, near/far task) required subjects to indicate whether the dot was within 3 mm of the line. For both tasks, the stimuli on each trial were presented to either the right visual field and left hemisphere (RVF/LH) or the left Visual field and right hemisphere (LVF/RH). For the above/below task, dioptric blurring consistently increased reaction time (RT) and did so equally on LVF/RH and RVF/LH trials. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the two visual fields for either clear or blurred stimuli. For the near/far task, dioptric blurring had no consistent effect on either RT or error rate for either visual field. On an initial block of trials, however, there were significantly fewer errors on LVF/RH than on RVF/LH trials, with the LVF/RH advantage being independent of whether the stimuli were clear or blurred. This initial LVF/RH advantage disappeared quickly with practice, regardless of whether the stimuli were clear or blurred. This pattern of results suggests that for both cerebral hemispheres, somewhat different aspects of visual information are relevant for categorical versus coordinate spatial processing and that the right hemisphere is superior to the left for coordinate (but not categorical) spatial processing.

scholarly journals Neuroticism, recall bias and attention bias for valenced probes: a twin study

2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. V. Rijsdijk ◽  
H. Riese ◽  
M. Tops ◽  
H. Snieder ◽  
W. H. Brouwer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Environmental Effects ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Dot Probe ◽  
Biologically Relevant ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
The Right

BackgroundPrior research on the nature of the vulnerability of neuroticism to psychopathology suggests biases in information processing towards emotional rather than neutral information. It is unclear to what extent this relationship can be explained by genetic or environmental factors.MethodThe genetic relationship between a neuroticism composite score and free recall of pleasant and unpleasant words and the reaction time on negative probes (dot-probe task) was investigated in 125 female twin pairs. Interaction effects were modelled to test whether the correlation between neuroticism and cognitive measures depended on the level of the neuroticism score.ResultsThe only significant correlation was between neuroticism and the proportion of recalled unpleasant words (heritability is 30%), and was only detectable at the higher end of the neuroticism distribution. This interaction effect seems to be due to environmental effects that make people in the same family more similar (e.g. parental discipline style), rather than genetic factors. An interesting sub-finding was that faster reaction times for left versus right visual field probes in the dot-probe task suggest that cognitive processing in the right hemisphere is more sensitive to subliminal (biologically relevant) cues and that this characteristic is under substantial genetic control (49%). Individual differences in reaction times on right visual field probes were due to environmental effects only.ConclusionsThere is no evidence that the predisposition of individuals to focus on negative (emotional) stimuli is a possible underlying genetic mechanism of neuroticism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document