Visual Field Left Hemisphere Research Articles

Hemispheric dissociations in controlled lexical-semantic processing.

Cognitive mechanisms of semantic priming in individuals with intact cerebral hemispheres were studied using the visual half-field method and lexical-decision tasks. In Experiment 1, unidirectionally associated word pairs were presented in a forward direction (e.g., BEAVER-TAIL) to isolate priming attributable to automatic activation or expectancy-based processing. Forward priming was restricted to the right visual field-left hemisphere, and it occurred only when expectancy-based processing was encouraged in the instructions. Experiments 2 and 3 found backward priming (e.g., TAIL-BEAVER) only in the left visual field, indicating that the right hemisphere contributes to retrospective semantic matching of the target back to the prime. The results suggest that the 2 hemispheres have different roles in controlled processing of semantic relations.

Laterality in visual speech perception.

The lateralization of visual speech perception was examined in 3 experiments. Participants were presented with a realistic computer-animated face articulating 1 of 4 consonant-vowel syllables without sound. The face appeared at 1 of 5 locations in the visual field. The participants' task was to identify each test syllable. To prevent eye movement during the presentation of the face, participants had to carry out a fixation task simultaneously with the speechreading task. In one study, an eccentricity effect was found along with a small but significant difference in favor of the right visual field (left hemisphere). The same results were found with the face articulating nonlinguistic mouth movements (e.g., kiss). These results suggest that the left-hemisphere advantage is based on the processing of dynamic visual information rather than on the extraction of linguistic significance from facial movements.

Hemispheric asymmetry in the visual contribution to postural control in healthy adults

This study was carried out in order to test the hypothesis of a right hemisphere dominance in the visual control of body balance. Eight healthy adults were subjected to a self-regulated lateral balance task, performed while sitting on a rocking platform. Four visual conditions were tested: open eyes with normal vision, closed eyes in the dark, left visual field-right hemisphere and right visual field-left hemisphere. Head and support displacements in the roll plane were recorded by means of an optoelectronic system. Two main results emerged from this study: (1) head stabilization in space was much more efficient in the left visual field-right hemisphere condition than in the three other visual conditions, and (2) although vision played an important role in the body stability whatever the anatomical level, there was no right hemisphere dominance at the pelvic level. A clear right hemisphere dominance was thus demonstrated as regards the visual contribution to head stabilization in space.

Hemispheric Asymmetries for Temporal Resolution: A Signal Detection Analysis of Threshold and Bias

Divided visual field techniques were used to investigate hemispheric asymmetries for (a) the threshold of fusion of two flashes of light and (b) the detection of simultaneous versus successive events for a group of normal, right-handed adults. A signal detection analysis revealed a higher level of accuracy for the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH) relative to the left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH) for both tasks. These results were interpreted in terms of a general left-hemisphere advantage for the discrimination of fine temporal events. The implications of these results for models of temporary asymmetry that describe the left hemisphere's advantage in terms of an exclusive specialization or relative superiority are then discussed.

Sleep wakefulness cycle

Abstract 48 right‐handed subjects performed verbal and spatial hemifield tachistoscopic tasks, half of them in spring and the other half in autumn. Significant differences were detected showing increased right visual field (left hemisphere) advantage in spring and increased left visual field (right hemisphere) advantage in autumn. Results may help to explain the reported seasonal propensity towards elevated mood in spring and towards depressed mood in autumn as related to the relative role of both hemispheres.

Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial representations: a reappraisal.

The purpose of the present study was to examine Kosslyn's (1987) claim that the left hemisphere (LH) is specialized for the computation of categorical spatial representations and that the right hemisphere (RH) is specialized for the computation of coordinate spatial representations. Categorical representations involve making judgements about the relative position of the components of a visual stimulus (e.g., whether one component is above/below another). Coordinate representations involve calibrating absolute distances between the components of a visual stimulus (e.g., whether one component is within 5 mm of another). Thirty-two male and 32 female undergraduates were administered two versions of a categorical or a coordinate task over three blocks of 36 trials. Within each block, items were presented to the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH), the left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH), or a centralized position. Overall, results were more supportive of Kosslyn's assertions concerning the role played by the RH in the computation of spatial representations. Specifically, subjects displayed an LVF-RH advantage when performing both versions of the coordinate task. The LVF-RH advantage on the coordinate task, however, was confirmed to the first block of trials. Finally, it was found that males were more likely than females to display faster reaction times (RTs) on coordinate tasks, slower RTs on categorical tasks, and an LVF-RH advantage in computing coordinate tasks.

Hemispheric processing of global form, local form, and texture

Hemispheric processing of global form, local form, and texture of hierarchical patterns composed of many, relatively small elements and patterns composed of few, relatively large elements was examined in two experiments, employing a Stroop-type paradigm. In experiment 1 subjects were instructed to attend either to the global or the local level of the pattern and to identify the form at the designated level. In experiment 2 subjects were to identify the global form or the texture. A right visual field (left hemisphere) advantage was obtained for detection of local form, and a left visual field (right hemisphere) advantage was obtained for detection of global form. When many-element patterns were processed in terms of global form and texture, the results failed to show reliable hemispheric differences. The results suggest that the hemispheres differ in their sensitivity to the relatively more global versus the relatively more local aspects of visual patterns which require focused attention (as in global/local form detection). When the task involved distributed attention (as in texture detection) no lateralized effects were observed.

Hemispheric differences in the rates of information processing for simple non-verbal stimuli

An inspection time task, used to gauge differences in speed of information processing between the hemispheres, was administered to 22 normal subjects. It was found that the left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH) exhibited an inferior performance relative to the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH). These results were consistent with other studies which have found an RVF-LH advantage for the processing of temporal/serial information. The possible ramifications of these results for models of asymmetry which do and do not attribute the left hemisphere's preferential capacity for language to these fundamental processes are then discussed.

Interhemispheric interaction when both hemispheres have access to the same stimulus information.

Right-handed Ss identified consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) nonsense syllables presented tachistoscopically. The CVC on each trial was presented to the left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH), to the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH), or the same CVC was presented to both visual fields (bilateral presentation). When recognition was incorrect, the pattern of errors was qualitatively different on LVF-RH and RVF-LH trials, suggesting that each cerebral hemisphere has its own preferred mode of processing the CVC stimuli. The qualitative pattern of errors on bilateral trials was identical to that obtained on LVF-RH trials. The bilateral results are described well by a model that assumes the mode of processing characteristic of the RH dominates on bilateral trials but is applied to both the LVF-RH and RVF-LH stimuli.

Processing from LVF, RVF and BILATERAL presentations: Examinations of metacontrol and interhemispheric interaction

Observers indicated whether two successively presented drawings of faces were identical or differed in one feature (hair, eyes, mouth, jaw). The first face of each pair was presented at the fixation point and the second was presented to the left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH), right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH), or to both visual fields simultaneously (BILATERAL). On DIFFERENT trials the RT of correct responses depended on which feature differed and the pattern of feature location effects was significantly different on LVF-RH and RVF-LH trials. On BILATERAL trials the feature location effect was identical to that obtained on RVF-LH trials and significantly different from that obtained on LVF-RH trials. In addition, the percentage of errors and RT of correct responses were both higher on BILATERAL trials than on unilateral trials. Implications of these results are considered for the concept of “metacontrol” in neurologically normal humans and for models of interhemispheric interaction.

Effects of a concurrent memory task on hemispheric asymmetries in categorization

Recent research on the division of processing between the two cerebral hemispheres has often employed two concurrent tasks to investigate the dynamic nature of hemispheric asymmetries. The experiment reported here explored the effects of two concurrent high-level cognitive tasks (memory retention and semantic categorization) on the direction and magnitude of hemispheric differences in the processing of words and pictures. Subjects were required to categorize words and pictures presented to either the left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH) or the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH). The categorization could be performed while holding either verbal material in memory (digit span), pictorial material in memory (serial nonsense figure recognition), or with no concurrent memory task. The effects produced hemisphere-specific, material-nonspecific interference. The verbal task removed a RVF-LH advantage at word categorization and enhanced a LVF-RH advantage on picture categorization; the pictorial task interfered with picture categorization in the LVF-RH, while enhancing a RVF-LH advantage at word categorization. The results are discussed in terms of multiple resource models of hemisphere function, capacity limitations, and the functional locus of processing required to produce various dynamic hemispheric effects.

SES-related Aspects of Neuropsychological Performance

Children from different socioeconomic backgrounds have been observed to employ different cognitive styles in problem-solving situations. These cognitive styles have in turn been linked to the functional specialization of the cerebral hemispheres. It was hypothesized, therefore, that performance asymmetries would also be SES-related, high-SES children processing stimuli presented to the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH) more efficiently than those presented to the left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH) and low-SES children showing the reverse pattern. A laterality task was administered tachistoscopically to 120 children, divided evenly by SES (high and low), sex, and grade (fifth and seventh). A marked RVF-LH advantage emerged among the high-SES group and a weak LVF-RH advantage among the low-SES group. Thus, the results provided general support for the central hypothesis. The findings are reviewed in the context of current models of human information processing in the cerebral hemispheres, and their broader implications for understanding SES-related differences in cognitive function are discussed.

Hemispheric patterns in visual search

A visual search paradigm was employed to examine hemispheric serial and parallel processing. Stimulus arrays containing 4, 9, or 16 elements were tachistoscopically presented to the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH) or left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH). Subjects judged whether all of the elements within an array were physically the same (all X's) or whether one (O) was different from the rest. Left hemisphere presentations were processed more quickly and accurately than LVF-RH presentations for all stimulus conditions. As the number of array elements increased, more errors and longer response times were obtained for different stimulus items whereas fewer errors and somewhat shorter response times were obtained for same stimulus items. These and previous results suggest that the left hemisphere obtains an advantage for visual search because of that hemisphere's superiority for fine-grained feature analysis rather than because of a fundamental hemispheric serial/parallel processing dichotomy.

Visual masking with presentations in same and opposite visual fields: evidence for contralateral masking.

Three experiments were conducted in a preliminary attempt to study the effects of presentations of an informational target stimulus to the right or left visual fields when the target was either preceded or followed by a noninformational masking stimulus and when the mask was presented to the same or opposite visual field of the target. Results indicated that masking was more effective in the same than in the opposite visual field but that masking of the opposite visual field was feasible for both forward and backward masking. Laterality effects were also found for forward and backward masking, with a modest advantage of the right visual field (left hemisphere) in both cases. Limitations of the data and directions for future research were discussed.

Signal-Detection Analysis of Hemispheric Differences in Visual Recognition Memory

In the present experiment, subjects decided on each trial whether or not a unilaterally presented probe digit was a member of a previously memorized set of two, three, or four digits. The probe was presented at a near-threshold duration and followed by a visual pattern mask. Signal-detection estimates of detectability and response bias were obtained from subjects' confidence ratings regarding their decisions. The detectability of the probe in memory was significantly better when the probe was presented to the right visual field-left hemisphere than when presented to the left visual field-right hemisphere. The response criterion became significantly more lax as memory-set size increased, but only for probes presented to the left visual field-right hemisphere. The present results are consistent with reaction-time studies using verbal stimuli that indicate a left hemisphere advantage in the efficiency of memory comparison.

Visual interalisation effect in reading Chinese characters.

Visual half-field experiments have been used to investigate perceptual differences in reading different types of writing scripts. It has been observed that tachistoscopic recognition of phonetic-based scripts (such as the English alphabet and Japanese Kana) tends to show a right visual field–left hemisphere (RVF-LH) superiority effect1,2 whereas recognition of logographic symbols (for example, Chinese characters) tends to show a left visual field–right hemisphere (LVF-RH) superiority effect3,4. A cerebral orthography-specific localisation hypothesis has been proposed to account for these data. We have conducted three experiments to examine the visual lateralisation effect in reading logographic symbols such as Chinese characters. Chinese subjects in the first experiment were exposed to brief tachistoscopic presentation of a single character, and their task was to name the character as soon as possible. A LVF-RH superiority was found. In the second experiment, the stimuli were two vertically arranged characters and the subjects were asked to name the stimulus terms as soon as possible. The third experiment was the same as the second except that the task was to decide whether these character-strings were correct semantic terms with a manual response. A RVF-LH superiority effect was found in both the second and third experiments. These differential visual lateralisation results were interpreted as reflecting the function-specific property of the two hemispheres and cast doubt on the orthography-specific localisation hypothesis proposed by earlier investigators.

Effects of concurrent verbal memory on recognition of stimuli from the left and right visual fields.

Two experiments examined the effect of concurrently holding 0, 2, 4, or 6 nouns in memory on the recognition of visual stimuli briefly presented to the left or right visual fields. When stimuli to be visually recognized were complex visuospatial forms it was found that a relatively easy memroy load of 2 or 4 nouns improved visual recognition accuracy on right visual field (left-hemisphere) trials relative to the no-memory condition; however, a more difficult memory load of 6 nouns decreased visual recognition accuracy to a level slightly below the no-memory condition. There were no effects of concurrent verbal memroy on visual form recognition on left visual field (right-hemisphere) trials. When the stimuli to be visually recognized were words it was found that a relatively easy memroy load of 2 or 4 nouns improved visual recognition accuracy and a more difficult load of 6 nouns decreased visual recognition accuracy on both left and right visual field trials. The complete pattern of results indicates that several factors including cerebral hemisphere specialization, stimulus codability, selective perceptual orientation, and selective cerebral hemisphere interference interact in systematic ways to produce overall visual laterality effects.

Hemispheric processing differences revealed by differential conditioning and reaction time performance.

Two different experimental procedures were used to examine (a) information-processing differences between two groups of subjects (Cs versus Vs) identified by the form of their conditioned eyeblinks; (b) information-processing differences between the right and left cerebral hemispheres; and (c) parallels between hypothesized C-V differences and right-left hemisphere differences. In the first experiment, the evocative command words BLINK and DON'T BLINK served as positive and negative conditioned stimuli. It was found that Vs gave more conditioned eyeblinks than Cs and that differential eyelid conditioning of Vs more than Cs was influenced by the semantic content of the stimuli. More importantly, the conditioning performance of Cs was more influenced by the semantic attributes of the stimuli when they were presented directly to the right visual field (left hemisphere) than when they were presented directly to the left visual field (right hemisphere). In contrast, the conditioning performance of Vs was equally influenced by the semantic attributes regardless of which hemisphere received direct stimulation. A second experiment was designed to determine whether such hemisphere-of-presentation differences for Cs versus Vs could also be obtained in a very different task. Subjects classified as Cs or Vs during a differential eyelid conditioning task then performed two same-different reaction time (RT) tasks that required discrimination of complex polygons in one case and the names of letters in another. On each RT trial both stimuli of a pair appeared briefly either in the center, left, or right visual field. For both Cs and Vs RTs to complex polygon pairs averaged 20 msec faster on left visual field trials than on right visual field trials, consistent with current hypotheses about right-hemisphere specialization for visuospatial processing. In contrast, the results for letter pairs generally confirmed the C-V differences found in Experiment 1. That is, the right visual field (left-hemisphere) advantage for these verbal stimuli was once again larger for Cs than for Vs. The present results suggest that the two groups of subjects (Cs versus Vs) differ qualitatively in the modes of information processing that they typically employ. The results also suggest that these different modes of processing are related to aspects of cerebral hemisphere organization and that even right-handed individuals may differ from each other in the extent to which each cerebral hemisphere is mobilized for a given experimental task. Such individual differences must be incorporated into both models of classical eyelid conditioning and models of cerebral hemisphere specialization.