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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

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

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

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.     

Hemisphere specialization of Go experts in visuospatial processing

To investigate hemisphere function of experts, Go experts and novices were given two Salthouse-type visuospatial tasks. In Experiment 1, stimuli of 4 digits in 6 cells were projected to the left (LVF) or right visual field (RVF). There was no prominent group difference in identification of digits and locations. In Experiment 2, stimuli of 4 digits in 16 cells were projected to the LVF or RVF. Go experts showed more accurate performance than novices. Both groups showed the same laterality, an RVF advantage, in the number identification. However, in the location identification, Go experts showed no visual field difference, whereas novices showed an RVF advantage. Based on these findings, the relationship between task demand and hemisphere function of experts is discussed.     

Lexical competition is enhanced in the left hemisphere: evidence from different types of orthographic neighbors

Two divided visual field lexical decision experiments were conducted to examine the role of the cerebral hemispheres in orthographic neighborhood effects. In Experiment 1, we employed two types of words: words with many substitution neighbors (high-N) and words with few substitution neighbors (low-N). Results showed a facilitative effect of N in the left visual field (i.e., right hemisphere) and an inhibitory effect of N in the right visual field (left hemisphere). In Experiment 2, we examined whether the inhibitory effect of the higher frequency neighbors increases in the left hemisphere as compared to the right hemisphere. To go beyond the usual N-metrics, we selected words with (or without) higher frequency neighbors (addition, deletion, or transposition neighbors). Results showed that the inhibitory effect of neighborhood frequency is enhanced in the right visual field. We examine the implications of these findings for the orthographic coding schemes employed by the models of visual word recognition.     

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.     

Hemispheric Differences in the Processing of Words Learned Early Versus Later in Childhood

The research investigated whether there are hemispheric differences in processing for words acquired early in childhood (early AoA) and words acquired later in childhood (late AoA). We hypothesized that because of recent evidence suggesting that there is a right hemisphere dominance in early childhood, early AoA words would be represented in the right hemisphere, and late AoA words would be represented in the left hemisphere. This hypothesis differs from an early view that late AoA words would be represented in the left hemisphere, and early AoA words would be represented in both hemispheres (Gazzaniga, 1974). We report two experiments using the divided visual field (DVF) technique. The results showed that there was a right visual field (RVF)/left hemisphere (LH) advantage only for late AoA words. For early AoA words, there was a left visual field (LVF)/right hemisphere advantage (RH). Implications for theories of hemispheric differences in word processing are discussed.     

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.     

Hemisphere differences in the effects of cuing in visual recognition tasks.

In Experiment 1 uncued recognition of single letters presented in left or right visual fields showed no hemispheric asymmetry, but cuing by alternatives produced a left-hemisphere advantage. Uncued recognition of words was better in the right visual field (left hemisphere), and this advantage was unchanged by cuing by alternatives or cuing by class. In Experiment 2 a mixed series of words, digits, and dots was presented. Uncued trials showed no asymmetry, but when a precue indicated which type or stimulus would appear next, a left-hemisphere advantage for words was evident. Cuing also produced a nonsignificant shift toward a left-hemisphere advantage for digits and a right-hemisphere advantage for dots. The asymmetrical effects of cuing can be explained by Kinsbourne's attentional model of lateralization, which suggests that cuing may selectively activate one hemisphere, and so bias attention toward the contralateral visual field. Repetition effects within and between visual fields were analyzed but no asymmetries were found.     

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

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

Hemispheric asymmetry in lexical decisions: the effects of grammatical class and imageability

It has been suggested that neural systems for lexical processing of nouns and verbs are anatomically distinct. The aim of the present study was to investigate if brain asymmetry for the processing of these two grammatical classes is also different. Neurologically intact adults performed a lateralized lexical decision task with grammatically unambiguous words of high, medium, and low degrees of imagery. For error scores a right visual field (RVF) advantage and an overall effect of imageability were obtained. For latency scores grammatical class and imageability modified visual field differences: in the noun class a RVF advantage was obtained only for low imagery nouns, while for the verbs the RVF advantage was present for both medium and low imagery verbs. These results suggest that the participation of right hemisphere neural systems in the processing of verbs is more limited than in the processing of nouns.     

Hemispheric Differences for Visual Matrix Processing: Stimulus Size and Spatial Frequency Effects

Hemispheric processing differences were assessed by presenting square matrices that varied in size and the number of filled-in cells. Subjects judged whether the matrix contained an even or odd number of filled cells. Experiment 1 employed relatively small matrix sizes (2 x 2, 3 x 3, and 4 x 4), and Experiment 2 employed relatively large matrix sizes (4 x 4, 6 x 6, and 8 x 8). Response time was shorter and error rates lower for left visual field/right hemisphere (LVF/RH) presentations compared to right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LH) presentations, with the larger matrices demonstrating the strongest visual field/hemispheric effects. Increases in the number of filled cells contributed to increases for the LVF/RH response time advantage only for the larger arrays. Analysis of the data from both studies collapsed across the number of filled cells produced highly consistent LVF/RH advantages for both response time and error rate, with stronger LVF/RH advantages found for the larger matrix sizes of both studies. The findings suggest that visual stimulus spatial frequency is a key determinant of hemispheric processing advantages, but that this factor is constrained by stimulus size variation. Theoretical implications with respect to the hemispheric processing double filtering by frequency model are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

The Contribution of Attention to the Right Visual Field Advantage for Word Recognition

Perceptual asymmetries have been explained by structural, attentional bias and attentional advantage models. Structural models focus on asymmetries in the physical access information has to the hemispheres, whereas attentional models focus on asymmetries in the operation of attentional processes. A series of experiments was conducted to assess the contribution of attentional mechanisms to the right visual field (RVF) advantage found for word recognition. Valid, invalid and neutral peripheral cues were presented at a variety of stimulus onset asynchronies to manipulate spatial attention. Results indicated a significant RVF advantage and cueing effect. The effect of the cue was stronger for the left visual field than the RVF. This interaction supports the attentional advantage model which suggests that the left hemisphere requires less attention to process words. The attentional asymmetry is interpreted in terms of the different word processing styles used by the left and right hemispheres. These results have ramifications for the methodology used in divided visual field research and the interpretation of this research.     

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.