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.     

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.     

No deficiency in left-to-right processing of words in dyslexia but evidence for enhanced visual crowding

Whitney and Cornelissen hypothesized that dyslexia may be the result of problems with the left-to-right processing of words, particularly in the part of the word between the word beginning and the reader's fixation position. To test this hypothesis, we tachistoscopically presented consonant trigrams in the left and the right visual field (LVF, RVF) to 20 undergraduate students with dyslexia and 20 matched controls. The trigrams were presented at different locations (from –2.5° to?+?2.5°) in both visual half fields. Participants were asked to identify the letters, and accuracy rates were compared. In line with the predictions of the SERIOL (sequential encoding regulated by inputs to oscillations within letter units) model of visual word recognition, a typical U-shaped pattern was found at all retinal locations. Accuracy also decreased the further away the stimulus was from the fixation location, with a steeper decrease in the LVF than in the RVF. Contrary to the hypothesis, the students with dyslexia showed the same pattern of results as did the control participants, also in the LVF, apart from a slightly lower accuracy rate, particularly for the central letter. The latter is in line with the possibility of enhanced crowding in dyslexia. In addition, in the dyslexia group but not in the control group the degree of crowding correlated significantly with the students’ word reading scores. These findings suggest that lateral inhibition between letters is associated with word reading performance in students with dyslexia.     

Different methods of lexical access for words presented in the left and right visual hemifields

Right-handed adults were asked to identify by name bilaterally presented words and pronounceable nonwords. For words in the normal horizontal format, word length (number of letters) affected left visual hemifield (LVF) but not right visual hemifield (RVF) performance in Experiments 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. This finding was made for words of high and low frequency (Experiment 6) and imageability (Experiment 5). It also held across markedly different levels of overall performance (Experiments 1 and 2), and across different relative positionings of short and long words in the LVF and RVF (Experiment 3). Experiment 4 demonstrated that the variable affecting LVF performance is the number of letters in a word, not its phonological length. For pronounceable nonwords (Experiment 7) and words in unusual formats (Experiment 8), however, length affected both LVF and RVF performance. The characteristics identified for RVF performance in these experiments also hold for the normal reading system. In this (normal) system the absence of length effects for horizontally formatted words is generally taken to reflect the processes involved in lexical access. Length effects in the normal reading system are thought to arise when lexical access for unusually formatted words and for the pronunciation of nonwords requires the short-term storage of information at a graphemic level of analysis. The characteristics of LVF performance indicate that horizontally formatted words presented to the right cerebral hemisphere can only achieve lexical access by a method that requires the short-term storage of graphemic information. This qualitative difference in methods of lexical access applies regardless of whether the right hemisphere is seen as accessing words in the left hemisphere's lexicon or words in a lexicon of its own.     

Effects of Output Order on Hemispheric Asymmetry for Processing Letter Trigrams

Observers identified consonant–vowel–consonant trigrams with the letters arranged vertically by pronouncing the stimulus (treating the bottom letter as the first letter) and spelling it from bottom to top. On each trial, the trigram was presented to the left visual field/right hemisphere (LVF/RH), to the right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LH), or to both visual fields simultaneously (BILATERAL trials). Quantitative and qualitative visual field differences were identical to those found when observers used a more natural response output order, treating the top letter of the trigram as the first letter. The results suggest that, regardless of output order, attention is distributed across the three letters in a relatively slow, top-to-bottom fashion on LVF/RH and BILATERAL trials, whereas attention is distributed more rapidly and evenly across the three letters on RVF/LH trials.     

Hemispheric differences in processing handwritten cursive

Hemispheric asymmetry was examined for native English speakers identifying consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) non-words presented in standard printed form, in standard handwritten cursive form or in handwritten cursive with the letters separated by small gaps. For all three conditions, fewer errors occurred when stimuli were presented to the right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LH) than to the left visual field/right hemisphere (LVF/RH) and qualitative error patterns indicated that the last letter was missed more often than the first letter on LVF/RH trials but not on RVF/LH trials. Despite this overall similarity, the RVF/LH advantage was smaller for both types of cursive stimuli than for printed stimuli. In addition, the difference between first-letter and last-letter errors was smaller for handwritten cursive than for printed text, especially on LVF/RH trials. These results suggest a greater contribution of the right hemisphere to the identification of handwritten cursive, which is likely related visual complexity and to qualitative differences in the processing of cursive versus print.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Lateral word recognition: Effects of unilateral and bilateral presentation, asynchrony of bilateral presentation, and forced order of report

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.     

Selective attention and interhemispheric response competition in the split-brain

The interfering effect of an unattended stimulus on processing of an attended item was studied in a single split-brain participant (LB) and in normal controls. Pairs of letters were presented to the left visual field (LVF), right visual field (RVF), or bilaterally. Participants attended to the rightmost letter while attempting to ignore the leftmost letter. Responses associated with the attended and to-be-ignored letters could be compatible or incompatible. Manual response latencies were generally slower on Response Incompatible compared to Response Compatible trials. Notably, LB displayed this effect on Bilateral trials, where target and distractor were presented to opposite visual fields. LB was unable to perform a same-different matching task with bilateral letter stimuli, but was able to name bilateral letters accurately. Hence, in the bilateral condition, the ability to cross-compare letters was dissociated from attentional interference and from letter naming. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Cerebral Asymmetries in Processing Strategies for Letter and Symbol Trigrams

Several studies have shown that laterally presented consonant–vowel–consonant (CVC) strings produce both superior performance, and a more wholistic processing strategy in the right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LHEM), and a more sequential strategy in the inferior left visual field (LVF). To determine whether these strategies are applied to other types of trigrams subjects (n= 30) were asked to identify consonant and symbol trigrams briefly projected unilaterally to the LVF or RVF, or bilaterally (the same trigram in both fields—BVF). A second group of subjects (n= 30) first practiced pronouncing consonant trigrams and then viewed them tachistoscopically. Both tasks yield RVF advantages. Symbols are processed more wholistically in the LVF, more sequentially in the RVF and in an intermediate pattern when presented bilaterally. In contrast, subjects seem to chunk letters as bigrams, and do so equally well in all fields, and visual field differences in strategies emerge for consonants only when they are pronounced. Pronounceability of consonant trigrams, assessed with ratings and vocal reaction times, was predicted by orthographic regularity. Since the RHEM has limited phonetic skills, but it, like the LHEM, is privy to information on orthographic regularity, the error pattern on consonant strings indicates non-phonetic processing, whereas the RVF wholistic strategy for consonant–vowel–consonant strings appears to reflect phonetic processing.     

A comparison of upper vs. lower and right vs. left visual fields using lexical decision

A series of experiments using the lexical decision task was conducted in order to investigate the functional differences between the upper and lower visual fields (UVF, LoVF) in word recognition. Word-nonword discrimination was swifter and more accurate for word stimuli presented in the UVF. Changing the eccentricity did not affect the UVF advantage over the LoVF. UVF superiority over LoVF was found to be equivalent for both right and left visual hemifield (RVF, LVF). In general, presenting related word primes enhanced all visual field differences in a similar manner (UVF over LoVF and RVF over LVF). However, primes consisting of semantically constraining sentences enhanced the RVF advantage over the LVF, but did not affect the UVF and LoVF differentially. The argument is made that UVF superiority cannot be due to perceptual or attentional differences alone, but must also reflect top-down information flow.     

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.     

Changes in same-different laterality patterns as a function of practice and stimulus quality

Accuracy and reaction time (RT) of judgments about sameness vs. difference of (a) names of two letters and (b) shapes of two nonverbal forms were examined for stimuli presented to the center, left (LVF), and right (RVF) visual fields. For same-name letter pairs during Experiment I, responses were more accurate and faster for LVF than for RVF trials on an initial 90-trial block, but this difference was reversed by a third 90-trial block. The RVF advantage for RT was maintained over Trial Blocks 4 and 5, given during a second session, but had disappeared on Trial Blocks 6 through 9 as RT reached the same asymptotic level for both visual fields. No LVF-RVF differences were obtained at any level of practice for different-name letter pairs or for any of the form pairs. Experiment II replicated the shift from LVF toward RVF advantage that occurred over the first three trial blocks of Experiment I and demonstrated that such a shift does not occur when the letters are perceptually degraded. The results were discussed in terms of differences in cerebral hemisphere specialization for visuospatial vs. abstract stages of letter processing and changes with practice in the relative difficulty of these stages.     

Evidence for scanning with unilateral visual presentation of letters

When letters and words are presented tachistoscopically, material from the right visual field (RVF) can be reported more accurately than that from the left visual field (LVF). The RVF superiority may reflect either left hemispheric dominance for language or directional scanning. Previous studies have deliberately focused on the cerebral asymmetry factor while "controlling" scanning and, thus, have cast some doubt on the potency of the scanning factor. Two experiments were conducted to show that scanning can induce a RVF superiority comparable to that often associated with cerebral asymmetry. The first experiment required bilingual subjects to report six English or six Hebrew letters, shown briefly in either the LVF or RVF, with order of report controlled. A RVF superiority found with English characters was matched by an equal but opposite LVF effect with Hebrew. In a second experiment, five English characters were shown briefly in either the LVF or RVF, and subjects had to identify a single character indicated by a post exposural cue. Using a spatial cue to by pass scanning, there were no field differences; with an ordinal position cue--a procedure thought to force scanning--there was a strong RVF superiority. The results show clearly that scanning can induce visual field differences.     

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.