Hemispheric asymmetry in the processing of absolute versus relative spatial frequency.

Observers indicated whether a stimulus presented to one visual field or the other consisted of two sine-wave gratings (the baseline stimulus) or those same two gratings with the addition of a 2 cycle per degree (cpd) component. When the absolute spatial frequencies of the baseline stimulus were low (0.5 and 1.0 cpd), there was a left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH) advantage in reaction time (RT) to respond to the baseline stimulus which disappeared when the 2 cpd component was added (i.e., the stimulus consisted of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 cpd components). When the absolute spatial frequencies of the baseline stimulus were moderate to high (4.0 and 8.0 cpd), a right visual field-left hemisphere advantage in RT to respond to the baseline stimulus approached significance and shifted to a significant LVF-RH advantage when the 2 cpd component was added (i.e., the stimulus consisted of 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0 cpd components. That is, adding the same 2 cpd component caused opposite shifts in visual laterality depending on whether 2 cpd was a relatively high or relatively low frequency compared to the baseline.     

Hemispheric differences in the interference among components of compound gratings

The relationship between local/global and high/low spatial-frequency processing in hemispheric asymmetries was explored. Subjects were required to judge the orientation of a high- or low-spatial-frequency component of a compound grating presented in the left visual field (LVF) or right visual field (RVF). In Experiment 1, attention was focused on one or the other component. A signal detection analysis indicated that sensitivity (d′) to the high-spatial-frequency target was reduced more by the presence of the low-spatial-frequency component when both were presented in the LVF rather than in the RVF. In Experiment 2, subjects determined whether a target orientation was present, independent of spatial frequency at only a single level (i.e., at the high- or low-spatial-frequency level), as opposed to both or neither level. An RVF/LH (left hemisphere) advantage was found when the decision was based on the orientation of the high-frequency component. The asymmetrical influence of visual field of presentation and spatial frequency upon sensitivity is discussed in terms of hemispheric differences in the magnitude of inhibition between spatial-frequency channels and in the role of transient channel activity to capture and direct higher order attentional processes.     

Visual hemispheric asymmetries depend on which spatial frequencies are task relevant

Observers classified sine-wave and square-wave gratings on the basis of fundamental frequency (Are the bars wide or narrow?) or on the basis of higher harmonic frequencies (Are the bars sharp or fuzzy?). Stimuli were presented in either the left (LVF) or right (RVF) visual field. When the classification was made on the basis of the fundamental frequencies (1 or 3 c/deg), there was a LVF/right hemisphere advantage. However, when the classification was on the basis of a sharp/fuzzy distinction which involved searching for the higher harmonic frequencies, then a RVF/left hemisphere advantage was found.     

Memory scanning of described images and undescribed images: Hemispheric differences

Seamon (1972) has found that reaction times (RTs) to memory probes do not increase with memory set size (M) for words encoded in mental images in a memory scanning task. Rothstein and Atkinson (1975) have failed to replicate Seamon’s results. Experiment 1 investigated this discrepancy by manipulating one methodological difference (whether images were or were not described) between the two investigations. Results revealed that described images produced typical linear increases in RT with M. Undescribed images, however, revealed no change in RT with M for positive probes (i.e., the word presented was contained in the current memory set). Experiment 2 manipulated to which visual field probes were presented (RVF — right visual field; LVF = left visual field). Results showed that the imagery group showed no relation between RT and M for probes presented to the LVF, but a linear relation for probes presentedto the RVF. Described-image and repetition groups revealed a linear relation between RT and M no matter which visual field received the probe.     

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.     

A comparison of upper vs. lower and right vs. left visual fields using lexical decision

A series of experiments using the lexical decision task was conducted in order to investigate the functional differences between the upper and lower visual fields (UVF, LoVF) in word recognition. Word-nonword discrimination was swifter and more accurate for word stimuli presented in the UVF. Changing the eccentricity did not affect the UVF advantage over the LoVF. UVF superiority over LoVF was found to be equivalent for both right and left visual hemifield (RVF, LVF). In general, presenting related word primes enhanced all visual field differences in a similar manner (UVF over LoVF and RVF over LVF). However, primes consisting of semantically constraining sentences enhanced the RVF advantage over the LVF, but did not affect the UVF and LoVF differentially. The argument is made that UVF superiority cannot be due to perceptual or attentional differences alone, but must also reflect top-down information flow.     

Automatic semantic association between emotional valence and brightness in the right hemisphere

Positive words (e.g., faith) were recognised better when presented in white fonts than in black fonts, whereas the opposite was true for negative words (e.g., enemy). A neural basis for this type of association between emotional valence and brightness was investigated using a visual half-field paradigm. Positive and negative words were presented in black or white fonts and presented to the left visual field–right hemisphere (LVF–RH) or right visual field–left hemisphere (RVF–LH) in a word valence judgement task (i.e., positive vs. negative). A cross-over interaction between emotional valence and brightness was observed; valence judgements were facilitated when a positive word appeared in white and when a negative word appeared in black. This interaction was qualified by a higher-order interaction. The cross-over interaction appeared only for LVF–RH trials, suggesting that the right hemisphere was responsible for the association between emotional valence and brightness.     

Evidence for scanning with unilateral visual presentation of letters

When letters and words are presented tachistoscopically, material from the right visual field (RVF) can be reported more accurately than that from the left visual field (LVF). The RVF superiority may reflect either left hemispheric dominance for language or directional scanning. Previous studies have deliberately focused on the cerebral asymmetry factor while "controlling" scanning and, thus, have cast some doubt on the potency of the scanning factor. Two experiments were conducted to show that scanning can induce a RVF superiority comparable to that often associated with cerebral asymmetry. The first experiment required bilingual subjects to report six English or six Hebrew letters, shown briefly in either the LVF or RVF, with order of report controlled. A RVF superiority found with English characters was matched by an equal but opposite LVF effect with Hebrew. In a second experiment, five English characters were shown briefly in either the LVF or RVF, and subjects had to identify a single character indicated by a post exposural cue. Using a spatial cue to by pass scanning, there were no field differences; with an ordinal position cue--a procedure thought to force scanning--there was a strong RVF superiority. The results show clearly that scanning can induce visual field differences.     

Hemispheric asymmetry in the processing of high and low spatial frequencies: a facial recognition task

The research investigated the relationship between spatial frequency and visual field in a facial recognition task. Faces of neutral affect (Ekman, 1979) were tachistoscopically presented to the right or left visual field. The faces were presented alone, or masked with square wave gratings of 1, 24, or 48 cycles/degree, for a duration of 10 msec. Accuracy in recognizing each target face from a group of five served as the dependent measure. Subjects were 15 males and 15 females. ANOVA results included a frequency x visual field interaction effect (p less than .001). As was hypothesized, LVF errors were highest in the absence of low spatial frequencies, while RVF errors were highest when a higher range of spatial frequencies was removed. These results confirm that the hemispheres show a differential efficiency in processing high and low spatial frequency information in faces. They also offer empirical evidence to support the clinical findings that both hemispheres contribute to facial recognition.     

Effects of processing speed on cerebral asymmetry for left- and right-oriented faces

A free-vision chimeric facial emotion judgment task and a tachistoscopic face-recognition reaction time task were administered to 20 male right-handed subjects. The tachistoscopic task involved judgments of whether a poser in the centrally presented full-face photograph was the same or different poser than in a profile photograph presented in the left or right visual field (LVF, RVF). The free-vision task was that used by J. Levy, W. Heller, M. Banich, and L. Burton (1983, Brain and Cognition, 2, 404-419) and involved judging which of two chimeric faces appeared happier, in which the two chimeras were mirror images of each other and each chimera consisted of a smiling half-face joined at the midline to a neutral half-face of the same poser. For the tachistoscopic task, subjects were divided into groups of Fast and Slow responders by a median split of the mean reaction times. For the Fast subjects, judgments were faster in the LVF than in the RVF, and there was a significant interaction between visual field and profile direction, such that responses were faster for medially oriented profiles; i.e., LVF responses were faster for right-facing than for left-facing profiles, with the reverse relationship in the RVF. The Slow responders did not show these effects. Only the Fast group showed the bias for choosing the chimera with the smile on the left as happier, and mean response speed and the LVF advantage on the tachistoscopic test correlated with the leftward bias on the free-vision task for all subjects combined. It was suggested that overall response speed on the face-matching task reflected the extent to which specialized and more efficient right hemisphere functions were activated.     

Lateralized effects of categorical and coordinate spatial processing of component parts on the recognition of 3D non-nameable objects

Participants performed two object-matching tasks for novel, non-nameable objects consisting of geons. For each original stimulus, two transformations were applied to create comparison stimuli. In the categorical transformation, a geon connected to geon A was moved to geon B. In the coordinate transformation, a geon connected to geon A was moved to a different position on geon A. The Categorical task consisted of the original and the categorically transformed objects. The Coordinate task consisted of the original and the coordinately transformed objects. The original object was presented to the central visual field, followed by a comparison object presented to the right or left visual half-fields (RVF and LVF). The results showed an RVF advantage for the Categorical task and an LVF advantage for the Coordinate task. The possibility that categorical and coordinate spatial processing subsystems would be basic computational elements for between- and within-category object recognition was discussed.     

Is Happy Facial Expression Identified by the Left or Right Hemisphere？

1IntroductionCorrectly identifying other people′s facial ex-pressions of emotions is important to human socialinteraction in all societies.Many studies suggestthat the identification of facial expressions in par-ticular and perceptual processing of emotional infor-mation is carried out mainly by the right hemi-sphere of the brain[1￣7].Damage to the righthemisphere generally produces more significant im-pairment in recognition of all facial expressions ofemotion than damage to the left hemisp…     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Word valence, attention, and hemispheric activity in depressed, remitted, and nondepressed controls

Clinically depressed (n = 20), previously depressed (n = 28), and nondepressed control (n = 27) individuals, classified according to a structured clinical diagnostic interview, participated in a study employing a modified prior entry (Titchener, 1908) procedure to investigate interrelationships among word (adjective) valence, visual attention, and cerebral hemispheric activity. Overall, positive words were selected more quickly when presented to the right, versus left, visual field (RVF, LVF); the opposite pattern was observed for negative words. While there was no significant group X Valence X Visual Field interaction, planned comparisons revealed that the aforementioned Valence X Visual Field interaction was significant only for the nondepressed control group. Although the remitted group exhibited an overall pattern similar to the control group, the depressed group evinced a pattern in the opposite direction for positive words (i.e., quicker in the LVF than the RVF).     

Right visual-field advantage in the attentional blink: Asymmetry in attentional gating across time and space

When two targets are presented in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), recognition of the second target (T2) is usually reduced when presented 150–500 ms after the first target, demonstrating an attentional blink (AB). Previous studies have shown a left visual-field (LVF) advantage in T2 recognition, when T2 was embedded in one of two streams, demanding top-down attention for its recognition. Here, we explored the impact of bottom-up saliency on spatial asymmetry in the AB. When T2 was spatially shifted outside from the RSVP, creating an abrupt onset of T2, right T2s showed a right visual-field (RVF) advantage. In lag-1 trials, right T2s were not only better recognized, but also showed a low T1-T2 order error rate. In contrast, recognized left T2s exhibited high order error rate. Without abrupt onset, symmetrical AB was found and order error rate was similarly low in both sides. Follow-up experiments showed that, while RVF advantage was related to bottom-up saliency, order errors were affected by T1 mask. The discrepancy between LVF and RVF advantage in the AB could be resolved in terms of two mechanisms of attentional gating: top-down attentional gating, which is biased towards LVF, and bottom-up attentional gating, which is biased towards RVF.     

Hemispheric differences in processing handwritten cursive

Hemispheric asymmetry was examined for native English speakers identifying consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) non-words presented in standard printed form, in standard handwritten cursive form or in handwritten cursive with the letters separated by small gaps. For all three conditions, fewer errors occurred when stimuli were presented to the right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LH) than to the left visual field/right hemisphere (LVF/RH) and qualitative error patterns indicated that the last letter was missed more often than the first letter on LVF/RH trials but not on RVF/LH trials. Despite this overall similarity, the RVF/LH advantage was smaller for both types of cursive stimuli than for printed stimuli. In addition, the difference between first-letter and last-letter errors was smaller for handwritten cursive than for printed text, especially on LVF/RH trials. These results suggest a greater contribution of the right hemisphere to the identification of handwritten cursive, which is likely related visual complexity and to qualitative differences in the processing of cursive versus print.     

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.