scholarly journals Does Judgment Feedback affect Visual-Field Superiority as a function of Stimulus Structure and Content?

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Anamitra Basu
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Response Latency ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Recognition Accuracy ◽  
Presentation Mode ◽  
Feedback Condition ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Dependent Variables ◽  
Stimulus Content ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

Visual-field advantage was envisaged as a function of presentation mode (unilateral, bilateral), stimulus structure (word, face), and stimulus content (emotional, neutral) in two conditions, with and without feedback of judgment. Split visual-field paradigm was taken into account with recognition accuracy and response latency as the dependent variables. Stimuli were significantly better recognized in left visual-field than in right visual-field. Unilaterally, rather than bilaterally, presented stimuli were significantly better recognized. Emotional content were intensely recognized than neutral content. Analysis using multivariate ANOVA suggested that words as well as faces were recognized better without judgment feedback condition as compared to with judgment feedback condition; however these stimuli were judged with significantly less response latency following judgment feedback.

Hemispheric Competence and Perceptual Confusability

1983 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 589-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Sergent
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Opposite Direction ◽  
Present Experiment ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Previous Experiment ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Methodological Procedures ◽  
Visual Field Superiority ◽  
Exact Replication

Hemispheric competence in performing easy and difficult letter classification was examined in an exact replication of a previous experiment by Jonides (1979). The present experiment failed to confirm Jonides's finding of right visual field advantage in conditions of perceptual confusability and left visual field superiority when the stimuli were easily discriminable. The results showed a trend in the opposite direction, but no significant interaction. This divergence is discussed with respect to existing evidence and methodological procedures.

scholarly journals Neural correlates of the eye dominance effect in human face perception: the left-visual-field superiority for faces revisited

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 1342-1350
Author(s):  
Wookyoung Jung ◽  
Joong-Gu Kang ◽  
Hyeonjin Jeon ◽  
Miseon Shim ◽  
Ji Sun Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Face Perception ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Dominance Effect ◽  
Neural Correlates ◽  
Human Face ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

Lateral Asymmetry in Visual Detection under Hypnosis

1987 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 899-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward J. Hass ◽  
Christopher W. Holden
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Response Time ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Priming Effect ◽  
Visual Detection ◽  
Dependent Measure ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Lateral Asymmetry ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
The Right

It has been suggested that the hypnotic state results in a greater relative activation or priming of the right cerebral hemisphere than of the left hemisphere. The experiment reported here employed hypnosis to produce such a priming effect in a visual-detection task. Subjects were required to detect the presence or absence of a gap in outline squares presented either to the left visual field or right visual field, with response time as the primary dependent measure. Those subjects who were hypnotized produced a 50-msec. response time difference favoring squares presented to the left visual field whereas control subjects and simulator-control subjects showed no lateral asymmetries. The result is classified as a material-nonspecific priming effect and discussed with regard to the nature of processing resources.

Visual Masking, Handedness, and Laterality

1974 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Luria
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Visual Masking ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Black Disk ◽  
Left Handed ◽  
Masking Stimulus ◽  
The Right

Monocular thresholds for a black disk and for single letters, presented either alone or followed by a masking stimulus, were obtained for both eyes of 16 left-handed Ss and 16 right-handed Ss. Thresholds for the disk tended to be lower when it was presented to the right visual field, particularly for the left eye and for right-handers. Thresholds for the letters tended to be lower when presented to the right visual field of right-handers and to the left visual field of left-handers. The masking stimulus enhanced these differences for the disk but not for the letters.

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.

Critique of Heron's Directional-Reading Conflict Theory of Scanning

1969 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 271-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Fudin
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Slight Modification ◽  
Conflict Theory ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

Heron (1957) proposed a theory of scanning of tachistoscopically presented alphabetical stimuli. It provided a unifying framework to interpret the disparate results obtained when a target is exposed such that half of it is in the left visual field and half in the right visual field, and when arrays are presented laterally, i.e., either in the right or left field. The theory basically holds that eye-movement tendencies established through reading are also operative in covert scanning because tachistoscopically exposed material is encoded in a manner similar to the way it is read. This paper accepts this position but offers a critical evaluation of Heron's ideas as to the manner in which these tendencies function. This discussion and a reexamination of the role of these tendencies in reading lead to the conclusion that they operate sequentially, not simultaneously, as Heron contended. A slight modification in Heron's theory is offered in light of this conclusion.

Effect of Lateral Eye Fixation on Cognitive Processes

1981 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 487-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald A. La Torre ◽  
Anne-Marie La Torre
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Spatial Task ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Intelligence Scale ◽  
Eye Fixation ◽  
Lateral Eye ◽  
The Right ◽  
Spatial Problems

Fourth grade children responded to verbal and spatial problems drawn from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. 24 responded to verbal problems while attending to the right visual field and to spatial problems while attending to the left visual field; 24 fixed attention to the left visual field during verbal problems and to the right visual field during spatial problems. A final 24 children fixed their attention centrally while responding to both sets of problems. There were no significant differences among the groups for verbal performance. Spatial problems were dealt with least effectively during right visual-field eye-fixation. Perhaps right visual-field fixation during a spatial task leads to interference with capacity and from functional distance. Left visual-field fixation might be facilitating as a result of functional closeness but this facilitation is offset by interference with capacity making the over-all result not significantly different from that for the control group. Verbal centers may be insulated against effects of interference.

Left and Right Visual Field Superiority for Letter Classification

1979 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Jonides
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Task Demands ◽  
Perceptual Processing ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
The Right ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

Two letter classification experiments examine the hypothesis that lateral asymmetries in perceptual processing are sensitive to subtle changes in task demands. The first experiment reports a right visual field superiority for an easy letter classification, but a left field superiority for a difficult classification using the same population of stimuli. Experiment II demonstrates that the right field superiority can be reversed if the easy classification trials are embedded among more difficult trials. The implications of these results for theories of hemispheric localization are discussed.

Effect of Learning on Hemispheric Dominance and Free Recall in a Single Subject

1972 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lester C. Shine ◽  
Joseph Wiant ◽  
Frank Da Polito
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Field Condition ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Hemispheric Dominance ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Single Subject ◽  
The Right

This experiment was designed to investigate the effect of learning on the free recall of letters presented tachistoscopically either to the left visual field, the right visual field, or identically and simultaneously to both visual fields. A modified Shine-Bower analysis of variance was used to analyze S's performance. The results indicate that initially, in accord with previous research, the right visual field is superior to the left visual field in performance, but that this superiority tends to reduce across trials and practically disappears in the later trials. Also, the right visual field condition is not appreciably better in performance than the condition with both visual fields.

Interhemispheric Integration of Compound Nouns: Effects of Stimulus Arrangement and Mode of Presentation

1987 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 663-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Marc Berger ◽  
Etienne Perret ◽  
Annemarie Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Pictorial Representation ◽  
Reading Habits ◽  
Mode Of Presentation ◽  
Compound Nouns ◽  
Bilateral Condition ◽  
Stimulus Arrangement ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

Normal subjects had to name German compound nouns which were presented tachistoscopically. The compound nouns were displayed either unilaterally to the left or right visual field or bilaterally with one element to each visual field. In the bilateral condition a distinction was made as to whether familiar or unfamiliar arrangement of the elements was used. Representation in print was compared with pictorial representation of the compound nouns. A right visual-field superiority was observed with printed representation, but no laterality effects with pictorial representation. Bilateral processing was superior to unilateral processing. Within the bilateral conditions, the familiar arrangement of the elements yielded a significantly better performance than unfamiliar arrangement. This difference can be explained by reading habits and/or by different styles of interhemispheric integration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document