Left hemisphere superiority for pronounceable nonwords,but not for unpronounceable letter strings

Right-handed adults were asked to identify bilaterally presented linguistic stimuli under three experimental conditions. In Condition A, stimuli were three-letter pronounceable nonwords (such as TUP), and subjects were asked to report them by naming them. In Condition B, stimuli were three-letter pronounceable nonwords, and subjects were asked to report them as strings of letters. In Condition C, stimuli were more or less unpronounceable letter strings (such as UTP) created by rearranging the letters of pronounceable nonwords, and subjects reported them as strings of letters. Pronounceable nonwords were found to be better identified from the right visual hemifield irrespective of the way in which they were reported. Unpronounceable letter strings did not produce any visual hemifield difference. Nonwords are of interest because they can be seen as potential words that lack both specific semantic properties and entries in the subject's internal lexicon. The results of the experiment are consistent with the view that both the left and right cerebral hemispheres are able to identify letters but the left hemisphere is more sensitive to the pronounceability of the nonwords. This may happen either because the left hemisphere can make better use of resemblances to real words or because it has access to spelling to sound correspondence rules.     

Modes of word recognition in the left and right cerebral hemispheres

Four experiments are reported examining the effects of word length on recognition performance in the left and right visual hemifields (LVF, RVF). In Experiments 1 and 2 length affected lexical decision latencies to words presented in the LVF but not to words presented in the RVF. This result was found for both concrete and abstract nouns. Changing from a normal horizontal format to the use of unconventionally "stepped" words, however, produced length effects for words in both visual hemifields (Experiment 3). The Length x VHF interaction was found once again in Experiment 4 where subjects classified words as either concrete or abstract. A model proposing two modes of visual processing of letter strings is presented to account for these findings. Mode A operates independent of string length and is seen only in left hemisphere analysis of familiar words. Mode B is length dependent: it is the only mode possessed by the right hemisphere but is displayed by the left hemisphere to nonwords and to words in abnormal formats.     

Sequential processing in hemispheric word recognition: the impact of initial letter discriminability on the OUP naming effect

The cerebral hemispheres have been proposed to engage different word recognition strategies: the left hemisphere implementing a parallel, and the right hemisphere, a sequential, analysis. To investigate this notion, we asked participants to name words with an early or late orthographic uniqueness point (OUP), presented horizontally to their left (LVF), right (RVF), or both fields of vision (BVF). Consistent with past foveal research, Experiment 1 produced a robust facilitatory effect of early OUP for RVF/BVF presentations, indicating the presence of sequential processes in lexical retrieval. The effect was absent for LVF trials, which we argue results from the disadvantaged position of initial letters of words presented in the LVF. To test this proposition, Experiment 2 assessed the discriminability of various letter positions in the visual fields using a bar-probe task. The obtained error functions highlighted the poor discriminability of initial letters in the LVF and latter letters in the RVF. To confirm that this asymmetry in initial letter acuity was responsible for the absent OUP effect for LVF presentations, Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 1 using vertical stimulus presentations. Results indicated a marked facilitatory effect of early OUP across visual fields, supporting our contention that the lack of OUP effect for LVF presentations in Experiment 1 resulted from poor discriminability of the initial letters. These findings confirm the presence of sequential processes in both left and right hemisphere word recognition, casting doubt on parallel models of word processing.     

Hemisphere dynamics in lexical access: automatic and controlled priming

Hemisphere differences in lexical processing may be due to asymmetry in the organization of lexical information, in procedures used to access the lexicon, or both. Six lateralized lexical decision experiments employed various types of priming to distinguish among these possibilities. In three controlled (high probability) priming experiments, prime words could be used as lexical access clues. Larger priming was obtained for orthographically similar stimuli (BEAK-BEAR) when presented to the left visual field (LVF). Controlled priming based on phonological relatedness (JUICE-MOOSE) was equally effective in either visual field (VF). Semantic similarity (INCH-YARD) produced larger priming for right visual field (RVF) stimuli. These results suggest that the hemispheres may utilize different information to achieve lexical access. Spread of activation through the lexicon was measured in complementary automatic (low probability) priming experiments. Priming was restricted to LVF stimuli for orthographically similar words, while priming for phonologically related stimuli was only obtained in the RVF. Automatic semantic priming was present bilaterally, but was larger in the LVF. These results imply hemisphere differences in lexical organization, with orthographic and semantic relationships available to the right hemisphere, and phonological and semantic relations available to the left hemisphere. Support was obtained for hemisphere asymmetries in both lexical organization and directed lexical processing.     

Length, formats, neighbours, hemispheres, and the processing of words presented laterally or at fixation

It has long been known that the number of letters in a word has more of an effect on recognition speed and accuracy in the left visual field (LVF) than in the right visual field (RVF) provided that the word is presented in a standard, horizontal format. After considering the basis of the length by visual field interaction two further differences between the visual fields/hemispheres are discussed: (a) the greater impact of format distortion (including case alternation) in the RVF than in the LVF and (b) the greater facilitation of lexical decision by orthographic neighbourhood size (N) in the LVF than in the RVF. In the context of split fovea accounts of word recognition, evidence is summarised which indicates that the processing of words presented at fixation is affected by the number of letters to the left of fixation but not by the number of letters to the right and by the number of orthographic neighbours activated by letters to the left of fixation but not by the number of orthographic neighbours activated by letters to the right of fixation. A model of word recognition is presented which incorporates the notion that the left hemisphere has sole access to a mode of word recognition that involves parallel access from letter forms to the visual input lexicon, is disrupted by format distortion, and does not employ top-down support of the letter level by the word level.     

Different modes of word recognition in the left and right visual fields

We confirm previous evidence indicating that word length has a substantial effect on word recognition in the LVF but a much weaker effect in both the RVF and fovea. The nature of encoding in the LVF is not altered when the words are vertically displayed (Experiment 2), and the effect cannot therefore be entirely due to scanning artefact or acuity gradients in peripheral vision. We provide evidence that links the asymmetrical influence of word length directly to hemispheric specialization: left-handers, who as a group are much less consistently lateralized than right-handers are also less affected by word length in the LVF on the average (Experiment 3). This occurs because the asymmetry for certain left-handers is either very weak or, in some cases, is the complete reverse of the asymmetry observed in right-handers. Finally, we demonstrate that the length x field interaction is observed in lexical decisions (Experiment 4) which do not entail pronunciation of written words. There is some indication that concrete, high-imageable words produce a smaller effect of length in the LVF than abstract, low-imageable words, and we discuss this outcome in relation to the proposal that the right hemisphere can sometimes extract a lexical code from letter information. The concept of distinct modes of word recognition in the LVF and RVF clarifies a number of issues in laterality research, and suggests a new approach to evaluating group differences in half-field performance.     

Location, location, location: how it affects the neighborhood (effect)

Reaction times in lexical decision are more sensitive to a words' length and orthographic-neighborhood density when the stimulus is presented to the left visual field (LVF) than to the right visual field (RVF). We claim that the length effect is equivalent to the neighborhood effect, and propose a novel explanation of why the LVF, but not the RVF, is sensitive to density, based on different firing rates of abstract-letter representations encoding letters falling in the LVF versus RVF. We support this proposal with a large-scale implemented model of lexical decision utilizing spiking units, which provides a reasonable fit to the data from the English Lexicon Project under simulated central presentation, while replicating the observed hemifield asymmetries under simulated lateralized presentation.     

Word length and orthographic neighborhood size effects in the left and right cerebral hemispheres

Previous studies have reported an interaction between visual field (VF) and word length such that word recognition is affected more by length in the left VF (LVF) than in the right VF (RVF). A reanalysis showed that the previously reported effects of length were confounded with orthographic neighborhood size (N). In three experiments we manipulated length and N in lateralized lexical decision tasks. Results showed that length and VF interacted even with N controlled (Experiment 1); that N affected responses to words in the LVF but not the RVF (Experiment 2); and that when length and N were combined, length only affected performance in the LVF for words with few neighbors.     

Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: effects of orthographic neighborhood size

The split fovea theory proposes that visual word recognition of centrally presented words is mediated by the splitting of the foveal image, with letters to the left of fixation being projected to the right hemisphere (RH) and letters to the right of fixation being projected to the left hemisphere (LH). Two lexical decision experiments aimed to elucidate word recognition processes under the split fovea theory are described. The first experiment showed that when words were presented centrally, such that the initial letters were in the left visual field (LVF/RH), there were effects of orthographic neighborhood, i.e., there were faster responses to words with high rather than low orthographic neighborhoods for the initial letters ('lead neighbors'). This effect was limited to lead-neighbors but not end-neighbors (orthographic neighbors sharing the same final letters). When the same words were fully presented in the LVF/RH or right visual field (RVF/LH, Experiment 2), there was no effect of orthographic neighborhood size. We argue that the lack of an effect in Experiment 2 was due to exposure to all of the letters of the words, the words being matched for overall orthographic neighborhood count and the sub-parts no longer having a unique effect. We concluded that the orthographic activation found in Experiment 1 occurred because the initial letters of centrally presented words were projected to the RH. The results support the split fovea theory, where the RH has primacy in representing lead neighbors of a written word.     

Oral report of words and word approximations presented to the left or right visual field

Subjects reported letter strings forming words, pronounceable high approximations to words, and unpronounceable low approximations to words presented tachistoscopically to the left or right visual field (LVF, RVF). (a) For number of strings totally correct, the same RVF superiority was obtained with high approximations as with words, the field difference with low approximations being negligible. (b) In contrast, for letter scores from partially correct strings, RVF superiority did not vary with string type. Finding (a) is interpreted to indicate that the left hemisphere is differentially specialized for processing words as units and that requiring oral report makes pronounceable strings processable as word-like units. Finding (b) suggests that the left hemisphere is not specialized for processing subword fragments.     

More things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the initial letter acuity hypothesis

Schwartz, Montagner, and Kirsner (1987 Brain and Language, 31, 301-307) claim that length X visual hemifield interactions for recognition of horizontal words reflect acuity differences for the initial letters of short and long words rather than different methods of lexical access for words presented in the LVF and in the RVF. They argue that Young and Ellis did not satisfactorily eliminate this possibility because they (Young & Ellis, 1985, Brain and Language, 24, 326-358, Experiment 3) allowed the use of sophisticated guessing strategies. We demonstrate that the presentation conditions of the Schwartz et al. (1987) experiment are different from those of our (Young & Ellis, 1985) experiments in potentially important ways, and that the acuity gradient explanation proposed by Schwartz et al. to account for word length X visual hemifield interactions is inadequate in terms of both the existing literature and a reanalysis of data from our own (Young & Ellis, 1985) Experiments 1 and 3.     

Semantic priming with abstract and concrete words: differential asymmetry may be postlexical

We investigated whether abstract and concrete words would be differentially effective in priming lexical decisions to words presented to the right and left visual fields. Under low probability prime conditions, where priming is presumed to reflect a spreading activation process within the lexicon, equivalent priming was obtained in each VF for both abstract and concrete primes. However, when the same words were used in a high probability prime paradigm, abstract primes were much less effective in the LVF than in the RVF, while priming with concrete words did not differ across the visual fields. Since such priming may reflect a postlexical semantic integration stage, the results imply that hemisphere differences for processing abstract and concrete words may arise only after lexical access has occurred, when semantic information retrieved from the lexicon becomes available for subsequent processing.     

How brand names are special: brands,words, and hemispheres

Previous research has consistently shown differences between the processing of proper names and of common nouns, leading to the belief that proper names possess a special neuropsychological status. We investigate the category of brand names and suggest that brand names also have a special neuropsychological status, but one which is different from proper names. The findings suggest that the hemispheric lexical status of the brand names is mixed--they behave like words in some respects and like nonwords in others. Our study used familiar upper case brand names, common nouns, and two different types of nonwords ("weird" and "normal") differing in length, as stimuli in a lateralized lexical decision task (LDT). Common nouns, brand names, weird nonwords, and normal nonwords were recognized in that decreasing order of speed and accuracy. A right visual field (RVF) advantage was found for all four lexical types. Interestingly, brand names, similar to nonwords, were found to be less lateralized than common nouns, consistent with theories of category-specific lexical processing. Further, brand names were the only type of lexical items to show a capitalization effect: brand names were recognized faster when they were presented in upper case than in lower case. In addition, while string length affected the recognition of common nouns only in the left visual field (LVF) and the recognition of nonwords only in the RVF, brand names behaved like common nouns in exhibiting length effects only in the LVF.     

Words, hemispheres, and dissociable subsystems: the effects of exposure duration, case alternation, priming, and continuity of form on word recognition in the left and right visual fields

Three experiments explore aspects of the dissociable neural subsystems theory of hemispheric specialisation proposed by Marsolek and colleagues, and in particular a study by [Deason, R. G., & Marsolek, C. J. (2005). A critical boundary to the left-hemisphere advantage in word processing. Brain and Language, 92, 251–261]. Experiment 1A showed that shorter exposure durations for lower-case words (13 ms) are associated with reduced right visual field (RVF) advantages compared with longer exposure durations (144 ms). Experiment 1B compared report accuracy for lower case and mixed case words at the same exposure duration (144 ms). The RVF advantage was reduced for mixed case words due to case alternation having more of an adverse effect in the RVF than in the LVF. Experiment 2 tested a different prediction of dissociable neural subsystems theory. Four-letter words were presented in mixed case in the LVF or RVF for 100 ms. They were preceded at the same location by a prime which could be in the same word in the same alternation pattern (e.g., FlAg–FlAg), the same word in the opposite alternation pattern (e.g., fLaG–FlAg), or an unrelated letter string in the same or opposite case alternation pattern (WoPk–FlAg or wOpK–FlAg). Relative to performance in the letter string prime conditions, which did not differ significantly between the two visual fields, there was more of an effect of word primes in the RVF than in the LVF. Importantly, the benefit of a word prime was the same whether the prime was in the same alternation pattern or was in the opposition alternation pattern. We argue that these results run contrary to the predictions of dissociable neural subsystems theory and are more compatible with theories which propose that a left hemisphere word recognition system is responsible for identifying written words, whether they are presented in the LVF or the RVF, and that letters are processed to an abstract graphemic level of representation before being identified by that system.     

Lateralized word recognition: assessing the role of hemispheric specialization, modes of lexical access, and perceptual asymmetry

The processing advantage for words in the right visual field (RVF) has often been assigned to parallel orthographic analysis by the left hemisphere and sequential by the right. The authors investigated this notion using the Reicher-Wheeler task to suppress influences of guesswork and an eye-tracker to ensure central fixation. RVF advantages obtained for all serial positions and identical U-shaped serial-position curves obtained for both visual fields (Experiments 1-4). These findings were not influenced by lexical constraint (Experiment 2) and were obtained with masked and nonmasked displays (Experiment 3). Moreover, words and nonwords produced similar serial-position effects in each field, but only RVF stimuli produced a word-nonword effect (Experiment 4). These findings support the notion that left-hemisphere function underlies the RVF advantage but not the notion that each hemisphere uses a different mode of orthographic analysis.     

Facilitative orthographic neighborhood effects: the SERIOL model account

A large orthographic neighborhood (N) facilitates lexical decision for central and left visual field/right hemisphere (LVF/RH) presentation, but not for right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LH) presentation. Based on the SERIOL model of letter-position encoding, this asymmetric N effect is explained by differential activation patterns at the orthographic level. This analysis implies that it should be possible to negate the LVF/RH N effect and create an RVF/LH N effect by manipulating contrast levels in specific ways. In Experiment 1, these predictions were confirmed. In Experiment 2, we eliminated the N effect for both LVF/RH and central presentation. These results indicate that the letter level is the primary locus of the N effect under lexical decision, and that the hemispheric specificity of the N effect does not reflect differential processing at the lexical level.     

The neural basis of the right visual field advantage in reading: an MEG analysis using virtual electrodes

Right-handed participants respond more quickly and more accurately to written words presented in the right visual field (RVF) than in the left visual field (LVF). Previous attempts to identify the neural basis of the RVF advantage have had limited success. Experiment 1 was a behavioral study of lateralized word naming which established that the words later used in Experiment 2 showed a reliable RVF advantage which persisted over multiple repetitions. In Experiment 2, the same words were interleaved with scrambled words and presented in the LVF and RVF to right-handed participants seated in an MEG scanner. Participants read the real words silently and responded "pattern" covertly to the scrambled words. A beamformer analysis created statistical maps of changes in oscillatory power within the brain. Those whole-brain maps revealed activation of the reading network by both LVF and RVF words. Virtual electrode analyses used the same beamforming method to reconstruct the responses to real and scrambled words in three regions of interest in both hemispheres. The middle occipital gyri showed faster and stronger responses to contralateral than to ipsilateral stimuli, with evidence of asymmetric channeling of information into the left hemisphere. The left mid fusiform gyrus at the site of the 'visual word form area' responded more strongly to RVF than to LVF words. Activity in speech-motor cortex was lateralized to the left hemisphere, and stronger to RVF than LVF words, which is interpreted as representing the proximal cause of the RVF advantage for naming written words.     

Interhemispheric cooperation and non-cooperation during word recognition: evidence for callosal transfer dysfunction in dyslexic adults

Participants report briefly-presented words more accurately when two copies are presented, one in the left visual field (LVF) and another in the right visual field (RVF), than when only a single copy is presented. This effect is known as the 'redundant bilateral advantage' and has been interpreted as evidence for interhemispheric cooperation. We investigated the redundant bilateral advantage in dyslexic adults and matched controls as a means of assessing communication between the hemispheres in dyslexia. Consistent with previous research, normal adult readers in Experiment 1 showed significantly higher accuracy on a word report task when identical word stimuli were presented bilaterally, compared to unilateral RVF or LVF presentation. Dyslexics, however, did not show the bilateral advantage. In Experiment 2, words were presented above fixation, below fixation or in both positions. In this experiment both dyslexics and controls benefited from the redundant presentation. Experiment 3 combined whole words in one visual field with word fragments in the other visual field (the initial and final letters separated by spaces). Controls showed a bilateral advantage but dyslexics did not. In Experiments 1 and 3, the dyslexics showed significantly lower accuracy for LVF trials than controls, but the groups did not differ for RVF trials. The findings suggest that dyslexics have a problem of interhemispheric integration and not a general problem of processing two lexical inputs simultaneously.     

Hemispheric differences in case processing

Morphosyntactic capacities of normal brain hemispheres were compared in lexical decision studies involving centrally and laterally presented Serbo-Croatian nouns in different cases. Cases are distinguished by different suffixes and syntactic roles. Experiment 1 confirmed and extended previous findings of the nominative superiority effect: words in the nominative case were processed faster and more accurately than words in other three cases, and nonwords in the nominative case led to more false positive reactions than nonwords in other cases. In Experiment 2 this effect was replicated for right visual field stimuli: nominatives had faster reaction times and smaller error rates than accusatives, and the reversed pattern was found for nonwords. For left visual field stimuli, only the word error analysis found the nominative superior, while the other three analyses (word reaction times, nonword reaction times, and nonword error rates) showed no significant case effect. Word familiarity had an equally strong effect in both hemispheres. The results suggest that centrally presented stimuli are processed by the left hemisphere, that laterally presented stimuli are processed by the initially receiving hemisphere, and that the right hemisphere has a frequency-sensitive lexicon. Reduced right-hemisphere sensitivity for case differences may be due to different lexicon structure or the absence of appropriate morphological or syntactic mechanisms.     

The effect of meaningfulness in tachistoscopic word perception

Studies of tachistoscopic word perception were reviewed under two theoretical headings: the structural approach, in which the variables of interest are linguistic relations among letters, and the lexical approach, where the interest is in the availability of words in lexical memory. The results of a recent tachistoscopic recognition study question the importance of lexical availability by finding no difference in performance between meaningful words and well-structured, pronounceable nonwords. In the present study, further comparisons between words and pronounceable nonwords were performed, and a meaningfulness effect was demonstrated. The generality of this finding was discussed, and alternative models accounting for the effect were considered. Two of these were capable of explaining structural effects as well as the meaningfulness effect: a translation model and a lexical discrimination net.