Auditory neglect after right frontal lobe and right pulvinar thalamic lesions

Auditory unilateral neglect or extinction to simultaneous stimulation is reported in a right-handed male with a lesion in the right frontal lobe and in the right thalamic pulvinar area. The patient was submitted to stereotactic thalamotomy for a post-traumatic intentional ataxia in the left extremities. He was subjected to repeated tests with dichotic listening to consonant-vowel syllables under three different attentional instructions. He was also tested monaurally with the same stimulus materials as used in the dichotic test. The results showed almost complete extinction of the left ear input during dichotic presentations, despite normal hearing when tested with audiometer screening. The left ear extinction effect was independent of instructions to attend to the left or right ear input. However, during monaural presentation, correct left ear reports increased to about 85%. The results are interpreted as showing an auditory attentional neglect caused by the right frontal and pulvinar lesions.     

Attentional Effects in Dichotic Listening

This study addresses attentional effects in dichotic listening (DL) to consonant-vowel syllables. Previous research has shown that ear advantages in DL are modulated by biased attention to either the left or the right ear. Attentional effects in DL can be the result of two processes: facilitation of reports from the attended ear, or suppression of intrusions from the nonattended ear. Sixty-two students were tested with DL under three different task instructions: nonforced (divided) attention, attention forced to the right ear, and attention forced to the left ear. The main finding was inhibition of intrusions from the nonattended ear, combined with the facilitation of the correct reports from the attended ear during the two forced-attention conditions, compared with the nonforced condition. The results are discussed in relation to right hemisphere processing of dichotic input, and that attention may activate subcortically biased asymmetries which suppress input from the nonattended channel.     

Effects of hemispheric asymmetry on electrodermal conditioning in a dichotic listening paradigm

It was predicted that when an auditive verbal conditional stimulus (CS+), previously associated with an aversive unconditional stimulus (UCS), is presented to theright ear (initial left hemisphere input), in a dichotic listening task, with the CS-simultaneously presented in the left ear, the result would be greater resistance to extinction than when the same CS+ is presented to the left ear (initial right hemisphere input). In the same vein, it was predicted that, when a tonal CS+ is presented to theleft ear, greater resistance to extinction would occur as compared with when it is presented to the right ear. During a dichotic test phase, each group was split into two subgroups, and the CS+ and CS—repeatedly were presented simultaneously to each ear. Half of the subjects in each subgroup had the CS+ presented to the left ear. The other half had the CS+ presented to the right ear. Skin conductance responses were recorded from both hands. Results showed significantly larger responding in all groups to the CS+/UCS compound during the acquisition phase. However, during the dichotic extinction phase, the verbal CS+ right-ear subgroup showed significantly larger resistance to extinction as compared with the verbal CS+ left-ear subgroup. No differences were found between the two tonal subgroups.     

A comparison of dichotic and visuo-acoustic competition in hemispherectomized patients

Following hemispherectomy, patients performing dichotic listening tasks have great difficulty reporting items presented to the ear ipsilateral to their intact hemisphere. One possible cause is an attentional imbalance which, when competing inputs are received from both sides of space, restricts the patient's attention to the stimulus contralateral to his remaining hemisphere. If this explanation is true, then a similar ipsilateral ear decrement should occur when a competing visual stimulus is presented in the contralateral field. In the present study, however, hemispherectomy patients easily reported a digit presented to the ear ipsilateral to their intact hemisphere despite the concurrent presentation of a visual digit to their contralateral field.     

Right hemisphere comprehension of verbs in patients with complete forebrain commissurotomy: Use of the dichotic method and manual performance

The paradigm of dichotic listening was used to investigate verbal comprehension in the right, so-called “nonverbal,” hemisphere. Verbal commands were presented to the right and left ears in the simultaneous (dichotic) paradigm. There were striking instances, especially when the left hemisphere was occupied with some extraneous task, in which the right hemisphere understood the verbal command and executed the appropriate motor responses. In those instances the left hemisphere gave no overt response. Although the left hemisphere was usually dominant, it can be nevertheless concluded that not only can the right hemisphere understand verbal commands but can also express itself manually by executing actions more complex than object retrieval or pointing. As has been known for some time, the blockage of the ipsilateral pathway seems so complete during dichotic listening in the commissurotomy patient that there is no report of the words in the left ear—only of those presented to the right. At the same time there is normal report when words are presented to the left ear alone. It was found in the present study, however, that this model is too simple and only applies to the verbal response paradigm of dichotic listening. Under circumstances of dichotic presentation where the stimulus in the left ear (ipsilateral pathway) is necessary or important to the left hemisphere for completing a task, words from both pathways are reported. One may conclude that there exists a gating mechanism in each hemisphere that controls the monitoring of each auditory pathway and the degree of ipsilateral suppression.     

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.     

A forced-attention dichotic listening fMRI study on 113 subjects

We report fMRI and behavioral data from 113 subjects on attention and cognitive control using a variant of the classic dichotic listening paradigm with pairwise presentations of consonant-vowel syllables. The syllable stimuli were presented in a block-design while subjects were in the MR scanner. The subjects were instructed to pay attention to and report either the left or right ear stimulus. The hypothesis was that paying attention to the left ear stimulus (FL condition) induces a cognitive conflict, requiring cognitive control processes, not seen when paying attention to the right ear stimulus (FR condition), due to the perceptual salience of the right ear stimulus in a dichotic situation. The FL condition resulted in distinct activations in the left inferior prefrontal gyrus and caudate nucleus, while the right inferior frontal gyrus and caudate were activated in both the FL and FR conditions, and in a non-instructed (NF) baseline condition.     

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.     

Attention and the right-ear advantage: What is the connection?

Dichotic listening originally was a means of studying attention. Half a century ago Doreen Kimura parlayed the dichotic method into a noninvasive indicator of lateralized cerebral language representation. The ubiquitous right-ear advantage (REA) for verbal material was accepted as a concomitant of left-sided language lateralization and preferential conduction of right-ear messages to the left hemisphere. As evidence has accumulated over the past 50years showing the REA to be dynamic and modifiable, the concept of attention has become essential for interpreting the findings. Progress in understanding the role of attention has been manifested as a transition from efforts to document attention effects to efforts to characterize their mechanisms. We summarize the relevant evidence, trace the evolution of explanatory models, and outline contemporary accounts of the role of attention in dichotic listening.     

Dichotic listening with forced attention in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy: significance of left hemisphere cognitive dysfunction

Fifty right-handed patients with focal temporal lobe epilepsy were administered a dichotic listening test with consonant-vowel syllables under non-forced, forced right and forced left attention conditions, and a neuropsychological test battery. Dichotic listening performance was compared in subgroups with and without left hemisphere cognitive dysfunction, measured by the test battery, and in subgroups with left and right temporal epileptic focus. Left hemisphere cognitive dysfunction led to more correct responses to left ear stimuli in all three attention conditions, and fewer correct responses to right ear stimuli in the non-forced attention condition. This was probably caused by basic left hemisphere perceptual dysfunction. Dichotic listening was less affected by a left-sided epileptic focus than by left hemisphere cognitive dysfunction. General cognitive functioning influenced dichotic listening performance stronger in forced than in non-forced attention conditions. Larger cerebral networks were probably involved in the forced attention conditions due to the emphasis on conscious effort.     

The fate of ear asymmetries in short-term memory

Recognition memory for word lists presented to left or right ears was tested after filled retention intervals of 0-to 60-sec duration. Experiment 1 showed that the right-ear advantage (REA) for immediate recognition in dichotic listening does not occur after 10 sec delay. In Experiment 2, monaural presentation produced a nonsignificant REA which did not appear to be affected by delay. These data suggest that the REA for immediate report usually observed in the dichotic listening situation is a transient phenomenon which is based on phonetic encoding. The left hemisphere seems to be specialized for the initial reception of verbal information, but not for the storage or retention of such information over time.     

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.     

Manual asymmetry in weight discrimination: hand or spatial-field advantage?

Sixty subjects who were either left-handed or right-handed performed one-handed weight discrimination using their left and right hands in the left and right spatial fields. Differential thresholds, for the left and right hands of both left-handed and right-handed subjects, were found to be lower in the spatial field contralateral to the ear which proved superior in a dichotic listening test. It is concluded that manual asymmetry for weight discrimination results primarily from the mapping of sensorimotor events in the spatial fields onto contralateral cerebral cortex, with an advantage in the spatial field contralateral to the nonlanguage cerebral hemisphere.     

Language asymmetry and auditory attention in young adulthood after being born small-for-gestational age or with cardio-pulmonary resuscitation at birth.

A dichotic listening test with consonant-vowel syllables was used to assess language asymmetry and shift of attention in 42 young adults who had been in need of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation at birth, with a mild or moderate clinical course during the neonatal period (n = 31), or were born small-for-gestational age (SGA; n = 11) and compared with healthy controls (n = 17). All the participants were followed up prospectively and displayed no neurological or developmental deficits at 18 months of age. All the groups had an expected right-ear advantage during a baseline condition with no instructions to shift attention. The SGA group and the moderate resuscitated group displayed clear signs of an attenuation of the right-ear advantage and they were also less able to modify the ear preference in forced-attention conditions, compared with the control group. The main finding was that the groups with the most severe pre- and perinatal complications were also most affected on the dichotic listening test at adult age.     

汉语普通话声调加工的右耳优势及其机理：一项双耳分听的研究

采用双耳分听的任务探讨了汉语普通话声调加工的右耳优势问题,并引进反应手的因素,探讨了汉语声调加工的右耳优势的机制。结果表明,汉语母语被试对普通话声调的加工存在右耳、左脑优势,但这种优势是相对的,右脑也具备加工声调信息的能力,结果支持了直接通达模型。     

Children's recall strategies in dichotic listening

Normal adults spontaneously adopt different recall strategies in reporting dichotic material presented at different rates. A channel by channel or ear order is used with the faster rate of input and a pair by pair or temporal order is used with the slower rate of input. The purpose of the present report is to study the frequency of the different orders of report in children as a function of the rate of input of dichotic stimulation. Twenty-four normal children, 9–10 years of age, were given the dichotic listening task under three rate conditions. The children used different recall strategies as a function of rate of input in the same manner as that reported for adults. In addition, the order of presentation of the different rates of input was found to influence the relative frequency of the different recall strategies. A significant positive correlation was found between intelligence and the frequency of use of only the temporal recall strategy in its appropriate (slow) rate condition.     

Differences in cognitive control in children and adolescents with combined and inattentive subtypes of ADHD

The aim of the present study was to investigate the ability of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder-combined subtype (ADHD-C) and predominantly inattentive subtype (ADHD-PI) to direct their attention and to exert cognitive control in a forced attention dichotic listening (DL) task. Twenty-nine, medication-naive participants with ADHD-C, 42 with ADHD-PI, and 40 matched healthy controls (HC) between 9 and 16 years were assessed. In the DL task, two different auditory stimuli (syllables) are presented simultaneously, one in each ear. The participants are asked to report the syllable they hear on each trial with no instruction on focus of attention or to explicitly focus attention and to report either the right- or left-ear syllable. The DL procedure is presumed to reflect different cognitive processes: perception (nonforced condition/NF), attention (forced-right condition/FR), and cognitive control (forced-left condition/FL). As expected, all three groups had normal perception and attention. The children and adolescents with ADHD-PI showed a significant right-ear advantage also during the FL condition, while the children and adolescents in the ADHD-C group showed a no-ear advantage and the HC showed a significant left-ear advantage in the FL condition. This suggests that the ADHD subtypes differ in degree of cognitive control impairment. Our results may have implications for further conceptualization, diagnostics, and treatment of ADHD subtypes.     

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.     

Attentional biases and the right-ear effect in dichotic listening

Most dichotic listening experiments permit subjects to deploy attention in any way they choose. We argue that this adds uncontrolled variance to the observed right-ear advantage. In the first experiment, more robust laterality effects were obtained in an identification task with focused than with divided attention. Such differences were not found in the second experiment, when a detection procedure was used. Virtually all the laterality effect observed in the second study could be attributed to subjects who were biased attenders, in the sense that they exhibited more intrusions from the right ear to the left than vice versa. However, rather than indicating that laterality effects are simply attentional bias, this effect can be attributed to an asymmetry of perceptual discrimination.