Many experimental data support view that visual recognition of abstract patterns involves dominant hemisphere patterns are meaningful (or may be given some sort of meaning by subject) and minor hemisphere patterns (both meaningful and not meaningful) are complex, and hence difficult, from a perceptual standpoint (De Renzi, Scotti, & Spinnler, 1969; Faglioni, Scotti, & Spinnler, 1969c; Kimura, 1963; Milner, 1958; Milner & Kimura, 1964). The same hemispheric asymmetry has been found in tests involving memory, i.e., requiring delayed identification of visual patterns (De Renzi, Faglioni, & Spinnler, 1968; De Renzi & Spinnler, 1966; Faglioni & Spinnler, 1969; Milner, 1968). The problem is complicated by finding of Boiler & De Renzi (1967) that patients with left-side brain damage do worse than those with a right-side lesion on a paired-associate test of visual memory for apparently meaningless scrawls. This finding may perhaps be explained by a specific inability of former patients to convert meaningless scrawls into meaningful stimuli by way of internal verbalization. The results of a recent investigation on relationship between perception and memory of visual patterns (Faglioni & Spinnler, 1969) support conclusions summarized by De Renzi (1968) that the left hemisphere plays a major role memory process can be reinforced by verbal or cognitive mechanisms, whereas, on other hand, when patient has to rely entirely upon perceptual clues in building up trace, importance of right hemisphere comes to fore. These conclusions, however, are provisional and should be considered with caution, since there are data that are not in agreement with them. For example, in a study on color memory, Boller & Spinnler (1967)
Read full abstract