Does Global Context Modulate Cerebral Asymmetries? A Review and New Evidence on Word Imageability Effects

In this article we examine whether the distribution of function across the right and left cerebral hemispheres for lexical processing is influenced by the global context within which words are presented. A review of previously published studies indicates that the ubiquitous right visual field (RVF)/left hemisphere advantage for word recognition may be reduced or eliminated for nouns, content words, or high image words, but only when such items are presented along with verbs, function words, or low image words. However, paradoxically, when the former items are presented in more homogeneous contexts, the RVF advantage is uniformly observed. We propose that the processing efficiency of a hemisphere for a given stimulus depends on that item's relation to the other stimuli provided, that is, the global context. This was examined in a visual half-field experiment that varied whether high and low image nouns were presented in homogeneous (blocked lists) or heterogeneous (mixed lists) contexts. An unvarying RVF advantage was observed for high image words in homogeneous contexts, but this advantage was eliminated when the same items were presented in heterogeneous contexts. We suggest that stimulus heterogeneity maximizes reliance on differing, but complementary, computational biases across hemispheres. Hence, the extent to which the left and right hemispheres are recruited for the recognition of individual word types can vary dynamically with variation in the stimulus environment.     

Form-Specific Visual Priming in the Left and Right Hemispheres

Word fragment completion performance was examined for items that were presented in the same or different letter case at study and test. During the study phase words and nonwords were presented at central fixation, then during the test phase a divided visual field technique was used in which word fragments were presented briefly to the right hemisphere (left visual field) or the left hemisphere (right visual field). Previous research using the word stem completion task indicated that only the right hemisphere was sensitive to case changes in words from study to test. In contrast, the current results indicate that in the fragment completion task the priming effects for the test items presented to either hemisphere were greater when the fragments were in the same compared to different letter case at study and test. These results indicate that both hemispheres are capable of supporting form-specific visual implicit memory.     

A critical boundary to the left-hemisphere advantage in visual-word processing

Two experiments explored boundary conditions for the ubiquitous left-hemisphere advantage in visual-word recognition. Subjects perceptually identified words presented directly to the left or right hemisphere. Strong left-hemisphere advantages were observed for UPPERCASE and lowercase words. However, only a weak effect was observed for AlTeRnAtInG-cAsE words, and a numerical reversal of the typical left-hemisphere advantage was observed for words in a visual prototype font (a very unfamiliar word format). Results support the theory that dissociable abstract and specific neural subsystems underlie visual-form recognition and fail to support the theory that a visual lexicon operates in the left hemisphere.     

Abstractionist versus exemplar-based theories of visual word priming: A subsystems resolution

Three experiments addressed abstractionist versus exemplar-based theories of the visual representations underlying word priming. Participants first read centrally presented whole words (each displayed in all lowercase or in all uppercase letters), and then they completed laterally presented word stems (each displayed in all lowercase or in all uppercase letters). Word stem completion priming was letter-case specific (greater for same-case primed items than for different-case primed items) when stems were presented directly to the right cerebral hemisphere but not when stems were presented directly to the left cerebral hemisphere. This interaction was not influenced by the typicality of the test stems, but it was observed only for stems composed of letters with visually dissimilar lowercase and uppercase structures (e.g., bea/BEA) and not for stems composed of letters with visually similar lowercase and uppercase structures (e.g., sco/SCO). In contrast, cued recall was letter-case specific when similar-case or dissimilar-case stems were presented directly to the right hemisphere. Results do not support strongly abstractionist or exemplar-based theories. Instead, they suggest a resolution to these differing perspectives: Relatively independent neural subsystems operate in parallel to underlie abstract-category and specific-exemplar priming of word forms.     

Form-specific visual priming in the right cerebral hemisphere.

Results of 4 experiments indicate that both within-modality and case-specific visual priming for words are greater when test stimuli are presented initially to the right cerebral hemisphere (RH). In contrast, neither within-modality nor case-specific explicit memory for words is greater when stimuli are presented initially to the RH. Priming is measured using word-stem completion, and explicit memory is measured using word-stem cued recall. In both cases, Ss first rate how much they like words, and then word stems are presented briefly to the RH (in the left visual field) or to the left hemisphere (in the right visual field). Results suggest that at least 2 separate systems encode the visual representations that produce priming. The system that is more effective in the RH is better at representing form-specific information, whereas another system that is not more effective in the RH does not distinguish among distinct instances of word forms.     

The effect of orthographic uniqueness and deviation points on lexical decisions: evidence from unilateral and bilateral-redundant presentations

Words with an early or late orthographic uniqueness point and nonwords with an early or late orthographic deviation point were presented to the left, right, or both visual fields simultaneously. In Experiment 1, 20 participants made lexical decision judgements to horizontal stimulus presentations. In Experiment 2, a further 20 participants completed the task using vertical presentations to control for attentional biases. Consistent with previous research, words with earlier orthographic uniqueness points prompted faster responses across visual fields, regardless of stimulus orientation. Although research has suggested that the left hemisphere's superiority for language processing stems from a comparatively parallel processing strategy, with the right hemisphere reliant upon a serial mechanism, left and right visual field presentations were not differentially affected by orthographic uniqueness point. This suggests that differential sequential effects previously reported result during processes other than retrieval from the lexicon. The overall right visual field advantage observed using horizontal presentations disappeared when stimuli were presented vertically. Contrary to expectations, there was a facilitatory effect of late orthographic deviation point for horizontal nonword presentations. Overall, the results were interpreted as being consistent with predictions of a cohort model of word recognition, and they highlighted the effect of stimulus orientation on left and right hemisphere word recognition.     

Understanding metaphoric sentences in the two cerebral hemispheres

Previous studies indicate that the right hemisphere (RH) has a unique role in maintaining activation of metaphoric single word meanings. The present study investigated hemispheric asymmetries in comprehending metaphoric word meanings within a sentence context. Participants were presented with incomplete priming sentences followed by (literally) true, false, or metaphoric lateralized target words and were asked to decide whether each sentence is literally true or false. Results showed that responses to metaphoric sentences were slower and less accurate than to false sentences when target words were presented to the right visual field (RVF)-LH as well as to the left visual field (LVF)-RH. This suggests that the understanding of lexical metaphors within a sentence context involves LH as well as RH processing mechanisms and that the role of each hemisphere in processing nonliteral language is flexible and may depend on the linguistic task at hand.     

Right hemisphere sensitivity to word- and sentence-level context: evidence from event-related brain potentials

Researchers using lateralized stimuli have suggested that the left hemisphere is sensitive to sentence-level context, whereas the right hemisphere (RH) primarily processes word-level meaning. The authors investigated this message-blind RH model by measuring associative priming with event-related brain potentials (ERPs). For word pairs in isolation, associated words elicited more positive ERPs than unassociated words with similar magnitudes and onset latencies in both visual fields. Embedded in sentences, these same pairs showed large sentential context effects in both fields. Small effects of association were observed, confined to incongruous sentences after right visual hemifield presentation but present for both congruous and incongruous sentences after left visual hemifield presentation. Results do not support the message-blind RH model but do suggest hemispheric asymmetries in the use of word and sentence context during real-time processing.     

Hemisphere differences in conscious and unconscious word reading

Hemisphere differences in word reading were examined using explicit and implicit processing measures. In an inclusion task, which indexes both conscious (explicit) and unconscious (implicit) word reading processes, participants were briefly presented with a word in either the right or the left visual field and were asked to use this word to complete a three-letter word stem. In an exclusion task, which estimates unconscious word reading, participants completed the word stem with any word other than the prime word. Experiment 1 showed that words presented to either visual field were processed in very similar ways in both tasks, with the exception that words in the right visual field (left hemisphere) were more readily accessible for conscious report. Experiment 2 indicated that unconsciously processed words are shared between the hemispheres, as similar results were obtained when either the same or the opposite visual field received the word stem. Experiment 3 demonstrated that this sharing between hemispheres is cortically mediated by testing a split-brain patient. These results suggest that the left hemisphere advantage for word reading holds only for explicit measures; unconscious word reading is much more balanced between the hemispheres.     

Rhyming and the right hemisphere

Subjects determined whether two successively presented and orthographically different words rhymed with each other. The first word was presented at fixation and the second was presented either to the left or to the right of fixation, either alone (unilateral presentation) or accompanied by a distractor word in the other visual hemifield (bilateral presentation). Subjects were more accurate when the words did not rhyme, when presentation was unilateral, and when the target was flashed to the right visual hemifield. It was predicted that bilateral presentation would produce interference when information from both visual fields was processed by one hemisphere (callosal relay), but not when each of the two hemispheres performed a task independently (direct access). That is, callosal relay tasks should show greater laterality effects with bilateral presentations, whereas direct access tasks should show similar laterality effects with both bilateral and unilateral presentations. Greater laterality effects were observed for bilaterally presented rhyming words, but nonrhyming words showed similar laterality effects for both bilateral and unilateral presentations. These results suggest that judgment of nonrhyming words can be performed by either hemisphere, but that judgment of rhyming words requires callosal relay to the left hemisphere. The absence of a visual field difference with nonrhyming word pairs suggests further that judgment of nonrhyming word pairs may be accomplished by the right hemisphere when presentation is to the left visual field.     

Electrodermal responses to attended and nonattended significant stimuli during dichotic listening

Some investigators have found that words previously associated with shock elicit electrodermal responses (EDRs) when presented in the nonattended channel of a dichotic listening task. The present experiment tested for this phenomenon while closely monitoring for shifts in attention to the nonattended channel. College student volunteers verbally shadowed a series of unrelated words presented to the attended channel while words made significant by previous association with shock (and semantically related words) were occasionally presented to the nonattended channel. Three principal findings were obtained. Fist, when EDRs were averaged across all trials and across all subjects, it was found that EDRs were elicited by the significant words presented in the nonattended channel. Second, for the subgroup of subjects that had the significant words presented to the right ear (activating the left cerebral hemisphere), it was found that EDRs were elicited by the significant words presented to the left ear (activating the right cerebral hemisphere), it was found that EDRs were elicited by the significant word seven on trials on which there were no apparent shifts in attention. The results of this study indicate the importance of closely controlling and monitoring for shifts in attention and suggest the potential importance of cerebral laterality in mediating EDRs to stimuli presented in a nonatttended channel.     

Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: some words do, some words don't ... sometimes, some places

This study investigated spreading activation for words presented to the left and right hemispheres using an automatic semantic priming paradigm. Three types of semantic relations were used: similar-only (Deer-Pony), associated-only (Bee-Honey), and similar + associated (Doctor-Nurse). Priming of lexical decisions was symmetrical over visual fields for all semantic relations when prime words were centrally presented. However, when primes and targets were lateralized to the same visual field, similar-only priming was greater in the LVF than in the RVF, no priming was obtained for associated-only words, and priming was equivalent over visual fields for similar + associated words. Similar results were found using a naming task. These findings suggest that it is important to lateralize both prime and target information to assess hemisphere-specific spreading activation processes. Further, while spreading activation occurs in either hemisphere for the most highly related words (those related by category membership and association), our findings suggest that automatic access to semantic category relatedness occurs primarily in the right cerebral hemisphere. These results imply a unique role for the right hemisphere in the processing of word meanings. We relate our results to our previous proposal (Burgess & Simpson, 1988a; Chiarello, 1988c) that there is rapid selection of one meaning and suppression of other candidates in the left hemisphere, while activation spreads more diffusely in the right hemisphere. We also outline a new proposal that activation spreads in a different manner for associated words than for words related by semantic similarity.     

Word matching and Lexical Decisions: A Visual Half-Field study

In unilateral Visual Half-Field tasks visuospatial and linguistic processing were compared. In a Word Matching task subjects judged the physical identity of simultaneously presented pairs of three-letter words or legal nonwords. No mainfield effects were found, but word pairs were recognized better and faster as "same" than nonword pairs. Latencies and errors in "different" pairs increased monotonically with position of letter change in the left but not in the right visual field (RVF), suggesting a serial, letter-by-letter way of processing for the right hemisphere and a whole word approach for the left. At this perceptual level the ability to store lexical information from the icon is stressed as a hemisphere-specific factor. In a Lexical Decision task the same subjects judged the same items on the word/nonword dimension. A RVF advantage associated with words as compared to nonwords occurred, as expected. Additional analysis suggests that order and difficulty of tasks may influence females' laterality, as compared to that of males.     

Hemispheric specialization in reading and word recognition

Three experiments dealing with hemispheric specialization are presented. In Experiment 1, words and/or faces were presented tachistoscopically to the left or right of fixation. Words were more accurately identified in the right visual field and faces were more accurately identified in the left visual field. A forced choice error analysis for words indicated that errors made for word stimuli were most frequently visually similar words and this effect was particularly pronounced in the left visual field. Two additional experiments supported this finding. On the basis of the results, it was argued that word identification is a multistage process, with visual feature analysis carried out by the right hemisphere and identification and naming by the left hemisphere. In addition, Kinsbourne's attentional model of brain function was rejected in favor of an anatomical model which suggests that simultaneous processing of verbal and nonverbal information does not constrict the attention of either hemisphere.     

The sum of the parts does not equal the whole: evidence from bihemispheric processing.

The 5 experiments in this article examine whether bihemispheric processing can be predicted from the processing observed when information is directed initially to just 1 hemisphere. Ss decided if laterally presented words rhymed with a previously presented central target. Trials varied in the degree to which the information displayed was redundant. On some trials, the same word appeared twice; in others, different words appeared, but they both led to the same decision; and finally, on some trials, different words appeared, each of which also led to a different decision. The patterns found for unilateral and bilateral trials were distinct. Furthermore, the pattern observed on bilateral trials could not be predicted from that found on unilateral trials, suggesting that interhemispheric interaction cannot be surmised from observing a hemisphere processing information in relative isolation.     

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.     

Hemispheric differences in picture-word interference

In a picture-word version of the Stroop task, 30 right-handed subjects were tested under each of six conditions in which a picture alone or a picture plus a word were presented to the left, the right, or both hemispheres. In two additional conditions the picture was presented to the right hemisphere and the word was simultaneously presented to the left hemisphere, or vice versa. For all conditions, subjects were instructed to name the picture only, as rapidly as possible. Picture naming times were significantly slower for the conditions in which the pictures were accompanied by words than in the respective picture alone conditions. Moreover, simultaneous presentation of a picture and a word to both hemispheres resulted in greater interference (slower picture naming times) than did the simultaneous presentation of the picture and the word to either the left hemisphere alone or the right hemisphere alone. The latter two conditions, in turn, resulted in significantly more interference than did the simultaneous presentation of the picture to one hemisphere and the word to the other hemisphere. This pattern of results suggests that the Stroop effect obtained under normal circumstances is in large part a function of the interference caused by the simultaneous processing of items in the same hemisphere. In contrast to hemispheric differences reported for the color-word Stroop task, the effect of presenting a picture and word simultaneously to the right hemisphere did not differ reliably from that of presenting a picture and word to the left hemisphere. The failure to replicate this aspect of the color-word Stroop is attributed to differences in the abilities of the two hemispheres to process the respective target items (the color or the picture) of the two tasks.     

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.     

Controlled recall of verbal material in temporal lobe epilepsy

This study used a guided process‐dissociation procedure to examine the contribution of controlled and automatic uses of memory to a cued‐recall task in 24 patients with unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE: 12 left‐sided; 12 right‐sided), and 12 neurotypical controls. In an inclusion task, participants attempted to complete three‐letter word stems using previously studied words, in an exclusion task they aimed to avoid using studied words to complete stems. Patients with left TLE produced fewer target completions under inclusion conditions. Completion rates were not significantly different under exclusion conditions. Estimates derived from process dissociation calculations, confirmed that the cued‐recall deficit in left TLE patients arose entirely from impairment in controlled memory processes. There were no group differences in the estimates of automatic processes. Recognition judgements of stems corresponding to studied words did not differ between the groups. Overall the results support the view that controlled and automatic memory processes are mediated by separable neural systems. Hippocampal and related structures within the left MTL are more important than corresponding right hemisphere structures for the controlled retrieval of verbal material. In contrast, the findings from this study do not suggest that the left and right temporal lobes make a differential contribution to automatic memory processing. The theoretical and clinical relevance of these findings are discussed.     

Recovery from hemialexia

Hemialexia is believed to be caused by the lesion of the splenium of the corpus callosum. However, no previous reports conclusively demonstrated that the hemialexic had the splenial lesion. A right-handed male with hemialexia who was presumed to have the splenium sectioned for a partial removal of a pineal tumor was examined with magnetic resonance imaging. The sagittal and coronal imagings clearly showed that his splenium was not present. The hemialexic had partially recovered at 9 years after the onset. The patient was 76% correct in Japanese phonogram words and 92% correct in ideogram words in an interfield same-different judgment, that is, judging whether 2 one-letter words, one in the left hemifield and the other in the right, were the same or different. Consequently, the possible mechanism for the recovery is that the transfer of visual word information from the right hemisphere to the left has been partially achieved by commissural fibers other than those of the splenium. Information from phonogram words in the right hemisphere is probably less transferred to the left hemisphere than that from ideogram words. The results also suggested that when the transfer of word information in the right hemisphere to the left is interfered with, the left hemisphere tends to mistake the same pair of words for the different pair.