Dichotic listening during forced-attention in a patient with left hemispherectomy

A young left-handed girl with an extensive posttraumatic lesion in the left hemisphere was tested with dichotic listening (DL) under three different attentional instructions. The major aim of the study was to evaluate a structural vs attentional explanation for dichotic listening. As both her expressive and receptive language functions were intact after the lesion, it was assumed that the right hemisphere was the language-dominant one. In the free-report condition, she was free to divert attention to and to report from both ear inputs. In the forced-right condition, she was instructed to attend to and report only from the right ear input. In the forced-left condition, she was instructed to attend to and to report only from the left-ear input. Her performance was compared with data from a previously collected sample of normal left-handed females. Analysis showed that the patient, in contrast to the normal sample, revealed a complete right-ear extinction phenomenon, irrespective of attentional instruction. Furthermore, she showed superior correct reports from the left ear, compared with those of the normal sample, also irrespective of attentional instruction. It is concluded that these results support a structural, rather than attentional explanation for the right-ear advantage (REA) typically observed in dichotic listening. The utility of validating the dichotic listening technique on patients with brain lesions is discussed.     

A dichotic listening study of attention control in older adults

The influence of age on attentional control of bottom-up processing was investigated with a dichotic-listening paradigm. The typical right-ear-advantage (REA) without specific attentional instructions was used as a measure of bottom-up processing (non-forced condition). Top-down attentional control was evaluated by instructing subjects to report only the right or left ear stimulus of the dichotic pair (forced-right, forced-left conditions). Both young and old participants showed a REA in the non-forced condition and an increased REA in the forced-right condition. The old group failed, however, to use attention to modulate the REA to the same degree as the younger participants in the forced-left condition. Only the young group showed a significant left ear advantage (LEA). The results are discussed in relation to cognitive decline in normal aging and in early stages of dementia.     

Hemispheric asymmetry and human associative learning: Interactions with attention

In a previous study (Hugdahl & Brobeck, 1986) it was shown that Pavlovian conditioning to an auditory verbal conditioned stimulus (CS) initially presented only to the left cerebral hemisphere was stronger than when the same CS was presented to the right hemisphere. This was followed up in the present study by controlling for the possibility that the effect was caused by laterally biased attention. The study was performed using the “dichotic extinction paradigm,” which consists of three different phases. During the habituation phase, the CS+ and CS- were presented binaurally and separated in time. During the acquisition phase, the CS+ was followed by a white-noise unconditioned stimulus (UCS). During the dichotic extinction phase, the CS+ and CS- were presented dichotically, i.e., simultaneous presentations on each trial. Half of the subjects had the CS+ in the right ear, and half had the CS+ in the left ear. Each group was further divided into two subgroups, with one subgroup instructed to attend only to the right ear input, and the other subgroup to attend only to the left ear input. During acquisition, larger electrodermal responses were obtained to the CS+ than to the CS-. During dichotic extinction, the CS+ right ear group showed superior resistance to extinction compared to the CS+ left ear group, with no effect of the manipulation of attention. The effect was, however, attenuated when levels of acquisition was used as covariates in an analysis of covariance. There were overall larger responses from the left hand recording.     

Dichotic listening and sleep deprivation: vigilance effects

Twelve sleep-deprived and 13 non-deprived Navy cadets were tested with the dichotic listening procedure for effects of sleep deprivation on hemispheric asymmetry and sustained attention. Consonant-vowel syllables were presented to the subjects in three different conditions, a divided (non-forced) attention condition, a forced right ear and a forced left ear attention condition. In the two forced attention conditions the subjects were instructed to focus attention only on the right or left ear stimulus. The results showed an expected right ear advantage for both groups during the non-forced and forced right attention conditions, indicating superior left hemisphere processing. During the forced left attention condition, the sleep-deprived subjects showed no ear advantage at all, while the non-deprived subjects showed an expected left ear advantage. The results are discussed within a theoretical framework of a dual process model, where sleep deprivation disrupts the ability to sustain attention, caused by a temporary failure of the right hemisphere's top-down (instruction-driven) processing to override the left hemisphere's bottom-up (stimulus-driven) processing.     

Using Dichotic Listening to Study Bottom-up and Top-down Processing in Children and Adults

The study examined top-down attention modulation of bottom-up processing in children and adults under conditions of varying bottom-up stimulus demands. Voiced and unvoiced consonant-vowel syllables were used in a dichotic-listening situation to manipulate the strength of the bottom-up stimulus-driven right ear advantage when subjects were instructed to focus attention on, and report, either the left or right ear stimulus. We predicted that children would differ from adults in their ability to use attention to modulate a lateralized ear advantage, and particularly when there was a conflict between the direction of the bottom-up ear advantage and the direction of the top-down attention instruction. Thirty children and 30 adults were presented with dichotic presentations of consonant-vowel syllables. The results showed that the voicing manipulation affected the strength of the ear advantage, and that the children performed significantly below the adults when the voicing parameter caused a strong conflict between bottom-up and top-down processing. Thus, children seem to lack the cognitive flexibility necessary to modulate a stimulus-driven bottom-up ear advantage, particularly in situations where right ear advantage (REA) is enhanced by the acoustic properties of the stimuli and attentional demands require a left ear shift. It is suggested that varying the stimulus demands in a dichotic-listening situation may be a novel way to study cognitive development.     

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.     

Response competition: A major source of interference in a tactile identification task

Two experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify a moving, tactile stimulus. In both experiments, the subjects were presented with a target to their left index fingerpad and a nontarget (also moving) to their left middle fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location and to respond “1” if the stimulus moved either to the left or up the finger, and to respond “2” if the stimulus moved either right or down the finger. The results showed that accuracy was better and reaction times were faster when the target and nontarget moved in the same direction than when they moved in different directions. When the target and nontarget moved in different directions, accuracy was significantly better and reaction times were significantly faster when the two stimuli had the same assigned response than when they had different responses. The results provide support for the conclusion that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers to the level of incipient response activation, even when subjects attempt to focus their attention on one location on the skin.     

Relations among hand preference,craniofacial asymmetry,and ear advantage in young subjects

The relations for hand preference with craniofacial asymmetry and ear advantage, and between craniofacial asymmetry and ear advantage were investigated in young healthy subjects. Ear advantage was recorded as duration of hearing, craniofacial asymmetry by computerized tomography in 44 right-handed and 38 left-handed male and female high school students. Right-handers had a right ear advantage and a larger left craniofacial region, whereas left-handers had a left ear advantage and a larger right craniofacial region. These results are consistent with the speculation that hand preference may be related to craniofacial and consequently aural asymmetries.     

Response competition: a major source of interference in a tactile identification task.

Two experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify a moving, tactile stimulus. In both experiments, the subjects were presented with a target to their left index fingerpad and a nontarget (also moving) to their left middle fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location and to respond "1" if the stimulus moved either to the left or up the finger, and to respond "2" if the stimulus moved either right or down the finger. The results showed that accuracy was better and reaction times were faster when the target and nontarget moved in the same direction than when they moved in different directions. When the target and nontarget moved in different directions, accuracy was significantly better and reaction times were significantly faster when the two stimuli had the same assigned response than when they had different responses. The results provide support for the conclusion that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers to the level of incipient response activation, even when subjects attempt to focus their attention on one location on the skin.     

Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding

Undergraduate students' presses on left and right buttons occasionally made available points exchangeable for money. Blue lights over the buttons were correlated with multiple random-ratio random-interval components; usually, the random-ratio schedule was assigned to the left button and the random-interval to the right. During interruptions on the multiple schedule, students filled out sentence-completion guess sheets (e.g., The way to earn points with the left button is to...). For different groups, guesses were shaped with differential points also worth money (e.g., successive approximations to “press fast” for the left button), or were instructed (e.g., Write “press slowly” for the left button), or were simply collected. Control of rate of pressing by guesses was examined in individual cases by reversing shaped or instructed guesses, by instructing pressing rates, and/or by reversing multiple-schedule contingencies. Shaped guesses produced guess-consistent pressing even when guessed rates opposed those characteristic of the contingencies (e.g., slow random-ratio and fast random-interval rates), whereas guesses and rates of pressing rarely corresponded after unsuccessful shaping of guesses or when guessing had no differential consequences. Instructed guesses and pressing were inconsistently related. In other words, when verbal responses were shaped (contingency-governed), they controlled nonverbal responding. When they were instructed (rule-governed), their control of nonverbal responding was inconsistent: the verbal behavior sometimes controlled, sometimes was controlled by, and sometimes was independent of the nonverbal behavior.     

Metacognitions in patients with hallucinations and obsessive-compulsive disorder: the superstition factor

On the basis of the analogy between intrusive thoughts and auditory hallucinations established by Morrison et al. [(1995). Intrusive thoughts and auditory hallucinations: a cognitive approach. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23, 265-280], the present work compares the metacognitive beliefs and processes of five groups of patients (current hallucinators, never-hallucinated people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, recovered hallucinators, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients, and a clinical control group) and a non-clinical group. The results show that of the five metacognitive factors considered in this study, two were found to be different in the current hallucinators group in comparison to any other group in the design. Likewise, it is found that the metacognitive beliefs of the current hallucinators coincide with those of the OCD patients in various factors, particularly that relating to superstition, and this is interpreted as lending support to the model of Morrison et al. (1995). Furthermore, the results are discussed in the light of existing research on Thought-Action Fusion, stressing the role that may be played by superstitious beliefs and magical thinking in auditory hallucinations and OCD.     

The perception of stress and lateralization of prosody

Three separate dichotic listening tasks were run to determine ear superiority for stress identification. When subjects were asked to identify stress placement in real word minimal stress pairs (hótdog vs. hot dóg), they demonstrated a right ear superiority. When these tokens were filtered so that phonetic and semantic information was eliminated and only the stress pattern remained, a different group of subjects showed a left ear advantage. Finally, with nonsense word counterparts to word stress pairs (bótgog vs. bot góg) preserving phonetic information but lacking semantic content, no ear asymmetry was found. These results suggest that as the linguistic significance of the stimuli is reduced, thereby lessening the linguistic function of stress, there is a less dominant involvement of the left hemisphere in stress processing. Results are discussed in relation to a theory of a functional integration of prosodic and segmental speech components that is paralleled by a working partnership of left and right hemisphere.     

Laterality and selective attention in hyperactive children

Laterality and selective attention were investigated in a group of 20 hyperactive children and their matched controls using a dichotic listening task. There was a strong rightear advantage for both groups indicating that hyperactive children were not different from normal children in hemispheric specialization for verbal stimuli. In the selective attention experiment hyperactive children were again not different from normal children in their ability either to select the input designated as relevant or to resist the distraction of input designated irrelevant. Both groups gave more correct responses from the right ear than from the left ear, and more intrusions from the right ear than from the left. The results do not suggest abnormalities of lateralization for verbal material or indicate the existence of a selective attentional deficit. It is suggested that such reported deftcits may be situation or taskspecific.     

Temporal precision of coding as a basic factor of laterality effects in the retention of verbal auditory stimuli.

It is proposed that the encoding of temporal or sequential information is of crucial importance for the explanation of the laterality effect. Evidence favoring this hypothesis is provided by reanalysing the experiment recently published by Mainka and Hörmann (1971). These investigators instructed Ss in a dichotic listening experiment to attend exclusively to material presented either to the right or the left ear. In the present paper free recall performance for words presented to the right and to the left ear was analysed separately with respect to the correspondence between the sequence of presentation and that of recall. It was found that the sequence of presentation and the sequence of recall correspond to a greater extent in the case of right ear material.It is suggested that the well-known laterality effect can be accounted for by assuming differences in the temporal precision of encoding the items presented to the right and left side. This interpretation is substantiated by a review of the research literature. It was assumed that this different accuracy in encoding the sequential aspects of a series of verbal items should result in a different speed in the retrieval of this series. This expectation was confirmed by the data of the experiment of Mainka and Hörmann. Thus, the encoding of temporal or sequential information is supposed to be effected primarily by the left hemisphere.     

Stimulus intensity, attentional instructions, and the ear advantage during dichotic listening

The present experiment was designed to investigate the effects of the following two variables on the identification of dichotically presented CV syllables: (1) the relative difference in intensity levels of the stimuli presented to the two ears and (2) the instructions to attend to both ears or to focus attention on one ear. As expected for a verbal task, more CV's were identified from the right ear than from the left ear. Furthermore, identification of stimuli presented to one ear improved when (1) those stimuli were relatively higher in volume than the stimuli presented to the other ear and (2) when subjects were instructed to focus attention on only that ear rather than distribute attention across both ears. Of particular importance is the finding that the effects of relative stimulus intensity are the same under conditions of focused attention as under conditions of divided attention. This finding is inconsistent with an attention explantation of the relative intensity effects. Instead, the results are consistent with a model of dichotic listening in which ear of stimulus presentation and relative stimulus intensity influence a perceptual stage of information processing and attentional instructions influence a subsequent response selection stage.     

Selective attention and cerebral dominance in perceiving and responding to speech messages

The effect of attention on cerebral dominance and the asymmetry between left and right ears was investigated using a selective listening task. Right handed subjects were presented with simultaneous dichotic speech messages; they shadowed one message in either the right or left ear and at the same time tapped with either the right or the left hand when they heard a specified target word in either message. The ear asymmetry was shown only when subjects' attention was focused on some other aspect of the task: they tapped to more targets in the right ear, but only when these came in the non-shadowed message; they made more shadowing errors with the left ear message, but chiefly for non-target words. The verbal response of shadowing showed the right ear dominance more clearly than the manual response of tapping. Tapping with the left hand interfered more with shadowing than tapping with the right hand, but there was little correlation between the degree of hand and of ear asymmetry over individual subjects. The results support the idea that the right ear dominance is primarily a quantitative difference in the distribution of attention to left and right ear inputs reaching the left hemisphere speech areas. This affects both the efficiency of speech perception and the degree of response competition between simultaneous verbal and manual responses.     

Left ear dichotic listening performance on consonant-vowel combinations and digits in subtypes of reading-disabled children

Twenty reading comprehension-disabled (CD) and 20 reading comprehension and word recognition-disabled (CWRD), right-handed male children were matched with 20 normal-achieving age-matched controls and 20 normal-achieving reading level-matched controls and tested for left ear report on dichotic listening tasks using digits and consonant-vowel combinations (CVs). Left ear report for CVs and digits did not correlate for any of the groups. Both reading-disabled groups showed lower left ear report on digits. On CVs the CD group showed a high left ear report but only when there were no priming precursors, such as directions to attend right first and to process digits first. Priming effects interfered with the processing of both digits and CVs. Theoretically, the CWRD group seems to be characterized by a depressed right hemisphere, whereas the CD group may have a more labile right hemisphere, perhaps tending to overengagement for CV tasks but vulnerable to situational precursors in the form of priming effects. Implications extend to (1) subtyping practices in research with the learning-disabled, (2) inferences drawn from studies using different dichotic stimuli, and (3) the neuropsychology of reading disorders.     

Ear asymmetry in a dichotic detection task

Pairs of consonant-vowel (CV) syllables were presented dichotically to Ss who were instructed to monitor for the presence of a target CV which could occur in either ear. Ss responded by depressing a response button ; reaction time (RT) was also recorded. Right ear targets were detected 6.2% more frequently, on the average, than left ear targets and had an average RT 50 msec quicker than their left ear counterparts. These results demonstrate the existence of a right ear superiority in dichotic listening when a nonverbal motor response measure is used, supporting the contention that the ear asymmetry phenomenon is truly perceptual in nature and not merely due to the lateralization of verbal output. Two alternative explanations of the RT difference between left and right ear targets are offered. One attributes this difference to the time necessary for intercortical transfer of right hemisphere information, while the second holds that it is due to the longer times needed by the right hemisphere to process information projected to it.     

Verbal and affective laterality effects in P-dyslexic, L-dyslexic and normal children.

Lateralization of verbal and affective processes was investigated in P-dyslexic, L-dyslexic and normal children with the aid of a dichotic listening task. The children were asked to detect either the presence of a specific target word or of words spoken in a specific emotional tone of voice. The number of correct responses and reaction time were recorded. For monitoring words, an overall right ear advantage was obtained. However, further tests showed no significant ear advantage for P-types, and a right ear advantage for L-types and controls. For emotions, an overall left ear advantage was obtained that was less robust than the word-effect. The results of the word task are in support of previous findings concerning differences between P- and L-dyslexics in verbal processing according to the balance model of dyslexia. However, dyslexic children do not differ from controls on processing of emotional prosody although certain task variables may have affected this result.     

Verbal and Affective Laterality Effects in P-Dyslexic,L-Dyslexic and Normal Children

Lateralization of verbal and affective processes was investigated in P-dyslexic, L-dyslexic and normal children with the aid of a dichotic listening task. The children were asked to detect either the presence of a specific target word or of words spoken in a specific emotional tone of voice. The number of correct responses and reaction time were recorded. For monitoring words, an overall right ear advantage was obtained. However, further tests showed no significant ear advantage for P-types, and a right ear advantage for L-types and controls. For emotions, an overall left ear advantage was obtained that was less robust than the word-effect. The results of the word task are in support of previous findings concerning differences between P- and L-dyslexics in verbal processing according to the balance model of dyslexia. However, dyslexic children do not differ from controls on processing of emotional prosody although certain task variables may have affected this result.