A Possible Connection between Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Relation Representations

Kosslyn (1987) theorized that the visual system uses two types of spatial relations. Categorical spatial relations represent a range of locations as an equivalence class, whereas coordinate spatial relations represent the precise distance between two objects. Data indicate a left hemisphere (LH) advantage for processing categorical spatial relations and a right hemisphere (RH) advantage for processing coordinate spatial relations. Although generally assumed to be independent processes, this article proposes a possible connection between categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Specifically, categorical spatial relations may be an initial stage in the formation of coordinate spatial relations. Three experiments tested the hypothesis that categorical information would benefit tasks that required coordinate judgments. Experiments 1 and 2 presented categorical information before participants made coordinate judgments and coordinate information before participants made categorical judgments. Categorical information sped the processing of a coordinate task under a range of experimental variables; however, coordinate information did not benefit categorical judgments. Experiment 3 used this priming paradigm to present stimuli in the left or right visual field. Although visual field differences were present in the third experiment, categorical information did not speed the processing of a coordinate task. The lack of priming effects in Experiment 3 may have been due to methodological changes. In general, support is provided that categorical spatial relations may act as an initial step in the formation of more precise distance representations, i.e., coordinate spatial relations.     

The role of stimulus factors in making categorical and coordinate spatial judgments

We report three experiments which investigate the lateralization of categorical and coordinate processing. In all experiments, participants judged the position of a dot relative to a line. We manipulated display luminance (controlling for contrast), polarity (black-on-white versus white-on-black displays), and exposure duration (100, 150, and 200 ms). The results showed a left visual field-right hemisphere advantage for coordinate judgments, but only under highly prescribed conditions. We argue that stimulus and procedural factors are critical in determining the hemisphere by task interaction.     

大脑两半球与整体和局部性质的选择性加工

研究大脑两半球在加工整体和局部性质中的优势以及两半球能否同时分别选择两个复合刺激的整体和局部性质。实验中把一个复合字母随机呈现在左视野或右视野,或者把两个复合字母同时分别呈现在左视野和右视野。实验一发现,在单侧呈现条件下,被试检测左右视野的整体或局部靶目标的反应时没有显著差别,但在双侧同时呈现条件下,检测右视野局部靶目标比检测左视野局部靶目标时的反应时短。实验二要求被试检测同时呈现在左右视野的整体或局部靶目标,发现当两个视野的靶目标处于同一水平时(整体或局部)反应时较短,两个视野的靶目标处于不同水平时(一侧处于整体水平而另一侧处于局部水平)反应时较长。这些结果提示,当两个复合刺激同时呈现在左右视野时,大脑左半球在选择性加工局部性质时具有优势;左右两半球更容易选择两个复合刺激同一个水平的性质,分别选择两个复合刺激不同水平的性质比较困难。     

Visual field differences in spatial frequency discrimination

Subjects discriminated between sine-wave gratings that differed by either +/-0.125 octaves (small difference) or +/-1.0 octaves (large difference). Baseline stimuli consisted of either 1.0 or 4.0 cycles per degree gratings. A left visual field advantage was obtained for the small difference in frequency, with no visual field advantages for the large difference in frequency. Similarly, moderate support for right versus left visual field advantages in processing high versus low spatial frequencies was found, although these interactions were not statistically significant. The results are discussed in light of Kosslyn's (1987) categorical and coordinate framework.     

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.     

Left-right and upper-lower visual field asymmetries for face matching,letter naming,and lexical decision

The relation between left-right and upper-lower visual field (VF) asymmetries was examined for face matching, letter naming, and lexical decision. Stimuli were flashed in the VF quadrants. Face matching resulted in a lower left and upper right VF advantage. Letter-naming resulted in a distinct upper-right VF advantage. For lexical decision, no upper/lower asymmetries were found. Words were processed faster in the right than in the left VF, while nonwords were processed equally fast in both VFs. The results are discussed in terms of hypothesized structural connections of the lower versus upper visual field to dorsal versus ventral visual pathways and in terms of attentional mechanisms related to the processing of visual information in the VF quadrants.     

Egocentric/allocentric and coordinate/categorical haptic encoding in blind people

In this research, the impact of visual experience on the capacity to use egocentric (body-centered) and allocentric (object-centered) representations in combination with categorical (invariant non-metric) and coordinate (variable metric) spatial relations was examined. Participants memorized through haptic (congenitally blind, adventitiously blind, and blindfolded) and haptic + visual (sighted) exploration triads of 3D objects and then they were asked to judge: "which object was closest/farthest to you?" (egocentric-coordinate); "which object was on your left/right?" (egocentric-categorical); "which object was closest/farthest to a target object (e.g., cone)?" (allocentric-coordinate); "which object was on the left/right of the target object (e.g., cone)?" (allocentric-categorical). The results showed a slowdown in processing time when congenitally blind people provided allocentric-coordinate judgments and adventitiously blind people egocentric-categorical judgments. Moreover, in egocentric judgments, adventitiously blind participants were less accurate than sighted participants. However, the overall performance was quite good and this supports the idea that the differences observed are more quantitative than qualitative. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed.     

Hemispheric asymmetries in categorical judgments of direction versus coordinate judgments of velocity of motion

Three experiments on visual field differences in motion perception are reported. Experiment 1 employed circular stimuli that grew or shrank either quickly or slowly. Experiments 2 and 3 employed circles that moved upward or downward either quickly or slowly. Judgments based on categorical equivalence classes (i.e., grow/shrink, upward/downward) generally yielded small and nonsignificant right visual field advantages. Judgments based on the precise coordinates of motion (i.e., quickly/slowly) yielded significant left visual field advantages across all three experiments. Results are interpreted in light of Kosslyn’s (1987) model of hemispheric differences in the processing of categorical versus coordinate spatial relations.     

Asymmetries in perception of tachistoscopically presented horizontal and vertical random-letter strings

Two studies examined perception of briefly presented (100-msec.) strings of letters. In Study One, 20 subjects were presented horizontal 5-letter strings in the left, central, and right visual fields. These were compared with 5-letter vertical strings presented centrally in the lower, central, and upper visual fields. Similar within-string patterns were found for all presentations. Between strings there was a typical right over left visual-field advantage in accuracy of report for horizontal strings. There was no equivalent lower over upper visual-field advantage for vertical strings. In Study Two, 24 subjects were presented vertical strings in the right and left visual fields, vertical strings in the upper and lower visual fields, and horizontal strings in the right and left visual fields. A post-stimulus cueing technique for single letters was used. Between-strings, the same right over left visual-field advantage for horizontal strings was noted but not for vertical strings. Between strings no advantage for lower over upper visual fields was found. An interaction for within-string patterns and visual field was found for vertical strings presented in the upper and lower visual fields. These results are explained in terms of an interaction between scanning and masking effects depending upon orientation and visual field.     

A left cerebral hemisphere’s superiority in processing spatial-categorical information in a non-verbal semantic format

It has been shown that the left and right cerebral hemispheres (LH and RH) respectively process qualitative or “categorical” spatial relations and metric or “coordinate” spatial relations. However, categorical spatial information could be thought as divided into two types: semantically-coded and visuospatially-coded categorical information. We examined whether a LH’s advantage in processing semantic-categorical information is observed in a non-verbal format, and also whether semantic- and visuospatial-categorical processing are differentially lateralized. We manipulated the colors and positions of the standard traffic light sign as semantic- and visuospatial-categorical information respectively, and tested performance with the divided visual field method. In the semantic-categorical matching task, in which the participants judged if the semantic-categorical information of a successive cue and target was the same, a right visual field advantage was observed, suggesting a LH’s preference for processing semantic-categorical information in a non-verbal format. In the visuospatial-categorical matching task, in which the participants judged if the visuospatial-categorical information of a successive cue and target was identical, a left visual field advantage was obtained. These results suggest that the processing of semantic-categorical information is lateralized in LH, and we discuss the dissociation between the two types of categorical information.     

Memory for locations within regions: Spatial biases and visual hemifield differences

Memory for location of a dot inside a circle was investigated with the circle in the center of a computer screen (Experiment 1) or with the circle presented in either the left or the right visual field (Experiment 2). In both experiments, as in Huttenlocher, Hedges, and Duncan’s (1991) study, the task was to relocate the dot by marking the remembered location. When errors in angular and radial estimates were considered separately, it was found that, in both experiments, the angular locations of estimates of the dots’ positions regressed toward different locations inside each quadrant of the circle; the radial locations of the estimates of dots’ positions tended to regress toward locations near the circumference. These variations in the direction of bias appeared to reflect a general shift of estimates toward the upper left arc of the circle. The second experiment replicated the preceding effects but also revealed that the regressions within quadrants of angular values were stronger after right visual field than after left visual field presentations. We interpret the dissociation between visual fields as evidence that memory for categorical spatial relations (Kosslyn, 1987) is more dependent on left-hemisphere than on right-hemisphere processing.     

Processing spatial relations with different apertures of attention

Neuropsychological studies suggest the existence of lateralized networks that represent categorical and coordinate types of spatial information. In addition, studies with neural networks have shown that they encode more effectively categorical spatial judgments or coordinate spatial judgments, if their input is based, respectively, on units with relatively small, nonoverlapping receptive fields, as opposed to units with relatively large, overlapping receptive fields. These findings leave open the question of whether interactive processes between spatial detectors and types of spatial relations can be modulated by spatial attention. We hypothesized that spreading the attention window to encompass an area that includes two objects promotes coordinate spatial relations, based on coarse coding by large, overlapping, receptive fields. In contrast, narrowing attention to encompass an area that includes only one of the objects benefits categorical spatial relations, by effectively parsing space. By use of a cueing procedure, the spatial attention window was manipulated to select regions of differing areas. As predicted, when the attention window was large, coordinate spatial transformations were noticed faster than categorical transformations; in contrast, when the attention window was relatively smaller, categorical spatial transformations were noticed faster than coordinate transformations. Another novel finding was that coordinate changes were noticed faster when cueing an area that included both objects as well as the empty space between them than when simultaneously cueing both areas including the objects while leaving the gap between them uncued.     

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.     

Individual differences in spatial relation processing: effects of strategy, ability, and gender

Numerous studies have focused on the distinction between categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Categorical relations are propositional and abstract, and often related to a left hemisphere advantage. Coordinate relations specify the metric information of the relative locations of objects, and can be linked to right hemisphere processing. Yet, not all studies have reported such a clear double dissociation; in particular the categorical left hemisphere advantage is not always reported. In the current study we investigated whether verbal and spatial strategies, verbal and spatial cognitive abilities, and gender could account for the discrepancies observed in hemispheric lateralization of spatial relations. Seventy-five participants performed two visual half field, match-to-sample tasks (Van der Ham, van Wezel, Oleksiak, & Postma, 2007; Van der Ham, Raemaekers, van Wezel, Oleksiak, and Postma, 2009) to study the lateralization of categorical and coordinate relation processing. For each participant we determined the strategy they used in each of the two tasks. Consistent with previous findings, we found an overall categorical left hemisphere advantage and coordinate right hemisphere advantage. The lateralization pattern was affected selectively by the degree to which participants used a spatial strategy and by none of the other variables (i.e., verbal strategy, cognitive abilities, and gender). Critically, the categorical left hemisphere advantage was observed only for participants that relied strongly on a spatial strategy. This result is another piece of evidence that categorical spatial relation processing relies on spatial and not verbal processes.     

A serial test of the laterality of familiar face recognition

The purpose of the present study was to address the issue of laterality of familiar face recognition. Seventy-two participants judged familiar faces presented laterally or centrally for their "faceness," familiarity, occupation, and name (which represent four stages of familiar face processing) using one of three response modes-verbal, manual, or combined. The pattern of reaction times (RTs) implied a serial process of familiar face recognition. Centrally presented stimuli were recognized faster than laterally presented stimuli. No RT differences were found between the left and right visual fields (VFs) across all judgments and response modes. The findings were interpreted as supporting the notion that there are no significant hemispheric differences in familiar face recognition.     

Decoding facial blends of emotion: Visual field,attentional and hemispheric biases

Most clinical research assumes that modulation of facial expressions is lateralized predominantly across the right-left hemiface. However, social psychological research suggests that facial expressions are organized predominantly across the upper-lower face. Because humans learn to cognitively control facial expression for social purposes, the lower face may display a false emotion, typically a smile, to enable approach behavior. In contrast, the upper face may leak a person’s true feeling state by producing a brief facial blend of emotion, i.e. a different emotion on the upper versus lower face. Previous studies from our laboratory have shown that upper facial emotions are processed preferentially by the right hemisphere under conditions of directed attention if facial blends of emotion are presented tachistoscopically to the mid left and right visual fields. This paper explores how facial blends are processed within the four visual quadrants. The results, combined with our previous research, demonstrate that lower more so than upper facial emotions are perceived best when presented to the viewer’s left and right visual fields just above the horizontal axis. Upper facial emotions are perceived best when presented to the viewer’s left visual field just above the horizontal axis under conditions of directed attention. Thus, by gazing at a person’s left ear, which also avoids the social stigma of eye-to-eye contact, one’s ability to decode facial expressions should be enhanced.     

Change detection in complex scenes: hemispheric contribution and the role of perceptual and semantic factors

The perceptual salience and semantic relevance of objects for the meaning of a scene were evaluated with multiple criteria and then manipulated in a change-detection experiment that used an original combination of one-shot and tachistoscopic divided-visual-field paradigms to study behavioural hemispheric asymmetry. Coloured drawings that depicted meaningful situations were presented centrally and very briefly (120 ms) and only the changes were lateralised by adding an object in the right or in the left visual hemifield. High salience and high relevance improved both response times (RTs) and accuracy, although the overall contribution of salience was greater than that of relevance. Moreover, only for low-salience changes did relevance affect speed. RTs were shorter when a change occurred in the left visual hemifield, suggesting a right-hemisphere advantage for detection of visual change. Also, men responded faster than women. The theoretical and methodological implications are discussed.     

Lateralized effects of categorical and coordinate spatial processing of component parts on the recognition of 3D non-nameable objects

Participants performed two object-matching tasks for novel, non-nameable objects consisting of geons. For each original stimulus, two transformations were applied to create comparison stimuli. In the categorical transformation, a geon connected to geon A was moved to geon B. In the coordinate transformation, a geon connected to geon A was moved to a different position on geon A. The Categorical task consisted of the original and the categorically transformed objects. The Coordinate task consisted of the original and the coordinately transformed objects. The original object was presented to the central visual field, followed by a comparison object presented to the right or left visual half-fields (RVF and LVF). The results showed an RVF advantage for the Categorical task and an LVF advantage for the Coordinate task. The possibility that categorical and coordinate spatial processing subsystems would be basic computational elements for between- and within-category object recognition was discussed.     

The two sides of beauty: Laterality and the duality of facial attractiveness

We hypothesized that facial attractiveness represents a dual judgment, a combination of reward-based, sexual processes, and aesthetic, cognitive processes. Herein we describe a study that demonstrates that sexual and nonsexual processes both contribute to attractiveness judgments and that these processes can be dissociated. Female participants rated the general attractiveness of faces presented in either their left or right visual field. In order to examine sexual and nonsexual components of these judgments, general attractiveness ratings were correlated with ratings of these same faces made by two independent groups of raters in two specific contexts, one sexual and one nonsexual. Based on an items analysis, partial correlation coefficients were computed for each individual and used as the dependent variable of interest in a 2 (laterality: right, left) by 2 (context: sexual, nonsexual) ANOVA. This analysis revealed an interaction such that faces rated in a sexual context better predicted attractiveness ratings of faces shown in the left than right visual field, whereas faces rated in a nonsexual context better predicted attractiveness of faces shown in the right than left visual field. This finding is consistent with the assertion that sexual and nonsexual preferences involve predominantly lateralized processing routes that independently contribute to what is perceived to be attractive.     

Perception of geometrical arrays tachistoscopically exposed in right and left visual fields.

Geometrical stimuli (48 6-item arrays of familiar forms, e.g., circle), tachistoscopically presented in the right or left visual field, were more accurately perceived in the right than left visual field by 15 college students. Targets about half the length of the displays exposed here were perceived with equal facility in both visual fields (Bryden, 1960). Results suggest that length of array might affect the difference in perceptual accuracy of forms shown in the right and left visual fields. Figures in the right visual field were predominantly processed from left to right, and forms in the left visual field from right to left. Since more symbols were identified in the right than left visual field, the left to right encoding sequence may be more efficient than a right to left movement. Limited experience of most Ss in reading symbols from left to right is probably only one factor. Extensive experience reading alphabetical material from left to right might have developed the physiological mechanism underpinning this sequence more than the one serving the opposite movement.