Hemispheric specialization for speech opposed,by contralateral noise

Twenty right-handed Ss listened to a dichotic tape in which one of six consonant-vowel syllables was paired with a burst of white noise on each trial. Eight blocks of 40 trials were presented, with the syllables within a block presented to, the same ear. On each trial, Ss decided if/ ba/ was presented. Mean RT to right-ear items was 440.0 msec, while mean left-ear RT was 453.6 msec. Responses indicating the presence of /ba/ were made significantly more quickly than responses indicating its absence, with no significant interaction of ear and type of decision. This study demonstrated a right-ear advantage in the perception of spoken syllables when noise is presented to the opposite ear. An interpretation of the RT differences between ears in terms of callosal transmission time is discussed, and implications of this study for the perceptual origins of the ear advantage effect are considered.     

Left hemisphere selectivity for processing duration in normal subjects

The role of the left cerebral hemisphere for the discrimination of duration was examined in a group of normal subjects. Two tasks were presented: the first required a reaction-time response to the offset of monaural pulse sequences varying in interpulse duration, and the second required the discrimination of small differences in durations, within a delayed-comparison paradigm. In each task a right-ear advantage was obtained when the durations were 50 msec or less. No ear advantage was obtained for the larger durations of 67 to 120 msec. Since the perceptual distinctiveness of phonemes may be provided by durations approximating 50 msec, the nature of the relationship between the left hemisphere's role in temporal processing and speech processing may be elaborated.     

The effects of contralateral noise on reaction time to monaural stimuli

Experiment I measured reaction time (RT) to monaural tones of six frequencies presented along with white noise to the contralateral ear. RT with the hand ipsilateral to the stimulus was an average of 9.63 msec faster than RT with the contralateral hand. Contralateral RT was significantly affected by the stimulus frequency. Experiment II measured ipsilateral and contralateral RT to monaural tones with and without contralateral noise. Noise-on results agreed with the results of Experiment I, while noise-off results showed no difference between ipsilateral and contralateral RT. No right-ear advantage was found. The ipsilateral-contralateral RT difference found with noise on is interpreted as being due to callosal transmission time as well as other factors. The finding of no right-ear advantage is discussed in relation to other studies which did report a right-ear advantage.     

Some properties of auditory memory for rapid formant transitions

In the three experiments reported here, subjects indicate whether two sequentially presented syllables, differing in the place of articulation of an initial stop consonant, are phonernically the same or not. The first experiment finds faster |ldsame” responses to acoustically identical pairs than to pairs that are phonemically identical but acoustically distinct. provided that the second syllable is presented within 400 msec of the first. This is interpreted as indicating the persistence of a memory which preserves auditory information about within-category distinctions. The third experiment shows that this advantage remains when a tone is interposed between the two syllables, but is removed when a brief vowel is similarly interposed. The second experiment presents the second syllable of each pair dichotically with a noise burst, and shows that the size of the right-ear advantage for this reaction time task is reduced when the result of comparisons based on this auditory memory is compatible with the required phonemic decision, but that the right-ear advantage is increased when auditory comparisons would contradict the phonemic relationship.     

The equivalence of target and nontarget processing in visual search

A comparison of a forced-choice visual search task with an item recognition task did not support Neisser’s (1967) hypothesis of a preattentive stage that processes targets and nontargets differentially. In the forced-choice condition, Ss indicated which of two items in a visual display was a target; in item recognition, Ss determined whether or not the single item in the visual display was a target. The size of the memorized set of possible targets was varied from one to six items for both tasks. Latencies increased linearly with memory set size in both conditions; the slopes for forced choice and item recognition were 41.8 and 27.9 msec per item, respectively. The ratio of 1.38 between the two slopes was well fit by Sternberg’s (1967) item recognition model, which predicts a ratio of 1.50.     

Ear asymmetry in recognition of unfamiliar voices

Female right-handed subjects were presented with a memory set consisting of five unfamiliar female voices. They were then tested with a recognition procedure in which samples of voice, memory set or novel, 2 or 4 sec in duration, were heard in one ear and a competing noise stimulus was heard in the other ear. There was an overall left-ear advantage in accuracy of recognition. This advantage held particularly for identifications of memory-set voices in the second half of trials. Internal analyses indicated that the left-ear advantage could not be attributed to greater retroactive interference during right-ear presentation. Congruent with studies of recognition of unfamiliar faces, the findings suggested right-hemisphere superiority in the recognition of unfamiliar voices.     

Skill and Hemispheric Specialization in Detecting Featural Differences in Visual Images

Visual asymmetry patterns related to skill were examined during a target–probe matching task in 24 skilled medical technologists and 24 matched controls. On each of 240 test trials, digitized replicas of specimens commonly encountered in medical laboratory diagnostics were shown centrally for 500 msec. Each target was immediately followed by a lateralized probe item for 120 msec that was either an exact copy (positive probe) or a distorted version (negative probe) of the target. Difficulty level of target–probe matching was manipulated on negative probe trials; half of the negative items consisted of difficult discriminations which were selected to assess the effects of domain-specific experience on detecting small differences in salient morphological features. Medical technologists exhibited a right visual field advantage, but were not different from the control subjects in speed or accuracy to positive probes or to easy negative probes. The observed left-hemisphere advantage in skilled visual processing is attributed to the beneficial effects of experience on the development of domain-specific visual analysis skills.     

Processing of repeated letters in search and matching tasks

Several published experiments have used a variant of the matching or “same”-“different” paradigm in which the subject indicates whether or not all of the items in a visual array are the same. Contrary to the results of most paradigms in which subjects process multiple items, reaction time (RT) in this matching task is independent of the number of items in the display (N). One possible explanation of this independence holds that subjects respond to some overall property of the display, such as its general symmetry, and not to the individual items. I tested this hypothesis with a visual search task in which subjects searched a circular display of N=2, 4, or 6 letters for a specified target letter under three stimulus conditions. In the varied condition, the nontarget letters were all different from each other. In the repeated condition, the nontargets were repetitions of the same letter, but a single discrepant letter was always present in the display. The uniform condition also used repeated nontargets, but the negative (target-absent) displays contained N repetitions of a single nontarget item. I found that RT increased at a rate of 27 msec/item for the varied condition, but at only 13 and 8 msec/item in the repeated and uniform conditions, respectively. The slopes in the latter conditions were significantly lower than the slope for the varied condition, and they also differed significantly from each other. Hence, there was some advantage attributable to properties of the overall patterns associated with positive and negative responses, suggesting that at least some responses were based on these properties. There was a much larger advantage, however, attributable to the use of repeated nontargets, regardless of whether the overall patterns differed. This latter observation implies that the flat RT functions observed in matching studies must be interpreted primarily in terms of responses to individual items rather than to the pattern as a whole.     

Toward a model of dichotic listening performance

Dichotic listening performance for different classes of speech sounds was examined under conditions of controlled attention. Consideration of the complex of target item and competing item demonstrated that, in general, targets were more accurately identified when the competing item shared no relevant features with it and less accurately identified when the competing item shared place, voice, or manner with the target item. Nasals as well as stops demonstrated a significant right-ear advantage (REA). False alarm rates were very similar for left and right attentional conditions, whereas intrusions from the right ear while attending to the left were far more common than intrusions from the left while attending to the right. Attention is viewed as serving to select the stimuli that will be reported, but at a late stage, and only after the right ear perceptual advantage has had its effect. A model of dichotic listening performance is proposed in which both the ease of localizing the item and the strength of evidence for the presence of the item are relevant factors.     

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.     

Monaural ear differences for reaction times to speech with a many-to-one mapping paradigm

On each trial, subjects were presented monaurally with single synthetic speech syllables. In Experiment I, when /ba/ and /ta/ specified one response, and /da/ and /ka/ another response, a right-ear advantage in reaction time was observed; when/ba/ specified one response and all the other stimuli specified the other response, no ear effect was observed. Unsuccessful attempts to obtain a monaural right-ear advantage for consonants in some reaction-time tasks might be due to some kind of prephonetic matching between a representation of the stimulus attended to and the presented stimulus, the output of this match providing sufficient information for response. In Experiment II, /bi/ and /b ? / specified one response and /b?/ and/bu/ the other response, but no ear effect was observed. It was concluded that the right-ear advantage displayed for consonants in the corresponding condition of Experiment I was not the pure effect of a particular stimulus-response mapping, but depended also on the phonetic properties of consonants.     

Ear asymmetry in reaction time to musical sounds

Dichotic pairs of musical sounds were presented to 16 right-handed subjects, who were instructed to depress a reaction-time (RT) button when a target sound occurred in either ear. Four blocks of 36 trials were presented. During the first block, RTs to left-ear targets were significantly faster than those to right-ear targets. There were no significant ear differences during the second, third, or fourth blocks. Possible explanations for the limited duration of the left-ear advantage, and its implications for models proposed to explain the basis of RT asymmetries, are discussed.     

When visual search functions look like item recognition functions

Visual search data were collected from six Ss on three target set sizes on each of 30 days. Error level was low, and items assigned to memory sets were nonnested and changed from session tosession. For each S. the same item sometimes required a positive and sometimes a negative response (response inconsistency). Combining data over Ss and over successive 6-day blocks, visual search rates as a function of target set size were found to be linear for each of the five 6-day blocks. The slopes of the above functions (memory search time) did not differ significantly over the final four 6-day blocks, and averaged approximately.500 sec per six-character item. These results are qualitatively very similar to results obtained from item recognition studies when error level, memory set structure, degree of response’_ consistency, and practice are handled in the same way in that task. The significantly lower slope obtained on the first 6-day block is shown to be consistent with a speed-accuracy trade off interpretation when error rate is expressed per unit of processing time (percent errors/set size). Over the final three 6-day blocks, where all important parameters ofthe data were highly stable, the intercepts of the memory search functions were found to closely approximate zero, averaging .0068 sec. From this finding, along with the finding that the memory search functions are linear, it is inferred that visual search time is determined entirely by memory search time, or by memory search time and other processes which increase linearly with set size, under the conditions of this experiment. The estimate of memory search time (approximately 83 msec/character) obtained using this visual search procedure is much slower than that obtained using the item recognition procedure (approximately 35\2-40 msec/character). An explanation for this difference is proposed.     

Listening to speech while retaining music: What happens to the right-ear advantage?

On each trial, subjects were played a dichotic pair of syllables differing in the consonant (/ba/, /da/, /ga/) or in the vowel (/ba/, /b?/, /bi/). The pair of syllables was preceded by a melody, or a sentence, and followed by the same or a different melody, or sentence. Subjects either had to retain the first piece of additional material or were free to ignore it. The different combinations of phonemic contrast, additional material, and instruction concerning the additional material were used in different sessions. In each case, the main task of the subjects was to respond to the presence or the absence of the target /ba/ on the ear previously indicated. There was no effect of context on relative ear accuracy, but the right-ear advantage observed for consonants in response latency when subjects retained a sentence gave way to a small nonsignificant left-ear advantage when subjects retained a melody. Right-ear advantage in response latencies was also observed for vowels in the verbal context, but the contextual effect, although in the same direction as for consonants, was very slight. The implications of contextual effects for a theory of the determinants of the auditory laterality effects are discussed.     

Hemispheric asymmetries in faculty and student musicians and nonmusicians during melody recognition tasks

Current research has suggested that musical stimuli are processed in the right hemisphere except in musicians, in whom there is an increased involvement of the left hemisphere. The present study hypothesized that the more musical training persons receive, the more they will rely on an analytic/left-hemispheric processing strategy. The subjects were 10 faculty and 10 student musicians, and 10 faculty and 10 student nonmusicians. All subjects listened to a series of melodies (some recurring and some not) and excerpts (some actual and some not) in one ear and, after a rest, to a different series of melodies in the other ear. The task was to identify recurring vs. nonrecurring melodies and actual vs. nonactual excerpts. For student musicians, there was a right-ear/left-hemispheric advantage for melody recognition, while for student nonmusicians, the situation was the reverse. Neither faculty group showed any ear preference. There were no significant differences for excerpt recognition. Two possible explanations of the faculty performance were discussed in terms of physical maturation and a functionally more integrated hemispheric approach to the task.     

Processing the intensity of dichotic syllables

Subjects were required to match the intensity levels of the left- and right-ear members of dichotically presented nonsense syllables. When subjects matched the overall average intensities of a sequence of differing dichotic pairs no ear differences were observed. When repetitions of single dichotic pairs were matched right-ear syllables were judged louder than left-ear syllables. The results support a model predicting left-hemisphere superiority in a task permitting higher-level encoding of speech input.     

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.     

Degree of ear asymmetries for perception of dichotic chords and for illusory chord localization in musicians of different levels of competence

Left-ear superiority for perception of dichotically presented musical chords was seen in musicians at all levels of competence. However, a hypothesis that dominance would be greater in the more professional musicians was not confirmed. Whereas many of the professionals did have the largest left-ear preferences, about half had strong right-ear superiorities instead. On the average, therefore, there was no ear dominance for the two most professional groups, although the other groups had the expected left-ear dominance. Furthermore, ear differences for the professional groups were distributed only in the categories of weak to strong left- and weak to strong right-ear preferences, whereas ear differences for the other groups included also the central categories of no or little ear preference. The better musician groups were also more strongly affected by an auditory illusion in which right-ear dominance occurred when subjects reported the ear receiving the high chord, whereas left-ear dominance was seen when they reported the ear receiving the low chord (for the same dichotic pair). That is, ear dominance was dependent on instructions, switching in the same subject from left to right ear when the task changed from reporting the location of the low to reporting the location of the high chord, respectively. However, ear dominance and switching were only partially present in nonmusicians and were weak in amateurs. It may be that ear dominance for chord recognition is influenced by specialized cognitive development in musicians, on the one hand, and by noncognitive neurophysiological factors on the other.     

Recognition latency for pictures and words as a function of encoded-feature similarity.

In separate trials of a same-different recognition task, a single target item presented as either a picture or a word was followed after a 30-sec delay by a single test item, either a picture or a word. Test items were either nominal matches for the target (same) or one of five related distractor items. Distractors were selected to resemble the target item on one of five dimensions: orthographic, acoustic, conceptual (functional or categorical), schematic (similar in shape), or neutral. Same-different reaction times were found to vary systematically as a function of depiction mode of target and/or test items and by distractor type. Verbally related distractors (orthographic and acoustic) produced longer reaction times when target or test items or both were presented as printed words. When target or test items were presented as pictures, schematic and conceptual distractors produced the longest rejection latencies.