The role of dichotic listening performance and tasks of executive functions in reading impairment: a discriminant function analysis.

This study focused on the role of dichotic listening performance for the identification of reading impaired subtypes. Dichotic listening (DL), using verbal stimuli, has shown to be a valid measure of language lateralization. Usually, lateralization is estimated from the proportion of right ear over left ear accuracy during a free recall test procedure. However, it has been suggested that a more accurate estimate of laterality can be obtained by using a directed attention procedure. A sample of 43 reading disabled children of whom 18 showed signs of impaired language comprehension skills and 25 without language comprehension impairments, were compared to 20 age, and gender, matched controls on dichotic listening performance in both an unbiased free recall task and in a directed attention task using consonant-vowel syllables as dichotic stimuli. A laterality index was calculated for left and right ear stimuli reported during both the free recall condition and the attended ear-scores for the two directed attention conditions. Although both DL procedures yielded significant group differences, with a lower laterality score for the reading disabled compared to the controls, there was no main effect of DL-procedure or group x procedure interaction. Taken alone, DL performance could correctly classify 42% of the reading impaired samples, but together with other measures of executive functions, discriminant function analyses yielded 90.74% accuracy in classifying reading impaired children. The result indicates that DL together with tests of executive functions are valuable tools for assessment of reading impaired subjects.     

Within-modal and cross-modal reliabilities of two laterality tests

Sixteen right handers were given four tests of a dichotic listening recall task (concrete words) and a visual half-field recall task (letters). There was a significant right ear and right visual half-field superiority for the four test sessions, with improvement in recall scores over sessions. Pearson correlations for each ear on the four dichotic tests ranged from .74 to .90. Correlations on the visual half-field scores, however, were significant only after the first session. Analysis of stability in lateral preferences across modalities revealed stable and reliable performance, particularly in the last two testings, where 81.3% of the subjects had a right-sided asymmetry. Cross-modal correlations, however, were not significant. Implications regarding predictions of speech laterality are discussed in the light of these findings.     

Dichotic listening performance to CVs between versus within groups

The present study is concerned with comparing group mean data between groups with individual performance within groups in dichotic listening (DL). It is argued that only comparing mean ear performance in dichotic listening between groups may obscure important individual differences within groups in DL performance. In the present study we compared between group vs. within group performance in four groups of subjects (male and female, right- and left-handers). The stimuli were 66 trials of consonant-vowel combinations with the six stop-consonants and the vowels a and u. The results showed a group mean right ear advantage for consonants in the two right-handed groups, and a left-ear advantage in the two let-handed groups. The analysis of the individual distributions within each group, however, showed clear differences between the male and female groups. Generally, though, only the male right-handed group revealed enough homogeneity within the group to warrant the conclusion that the group mean REA reflects a left hemisphere specialization for speech perception.     

Hemispheric asymmetry for linguistic prosody: a study of stress perception in Croatian

The aim of the study was to test for possible functional cerebral asymmetry in processing one segment of linguistic prosody, namely word stress, in Croatian. The test material consisted of eight tokens of the word pas under a falling accent, varying only in vowel duration between 119 and 185 ms, attached to the end of a frame sentence. The sentence could, depending on the duration of the vowel, mean 'This is a beautiful dog' or 'This is a beautiful belt/waist.' Each sentence was presented eight times in three dichotic listening conditions (binaural, left ear only, right ear only), in random order. Fourty healthy female right-handers participated in a forced-choice lexical task. For each presented sentence they had to decide whether it referred to the animal (short vowel in the key word) or to the belt/waist (long vowel in the key word). Their oral responses were analyzed in terms of response time and categoricity. No consistent significant differences were found among listening conditions. The responses possibly reflect the nonlateralized activity of subcortical regions or a simultaneous activity of both hemispheres relying on different cues.     

Hemispheric dominance, dichotic listening and lateral eye movement behaviour

Abstract.— Because lateral corrective eye movements have been shown to influence the results of the dichotic listening test, it was supposed that differences in the scoring on this test by right and left eye movers could be found. Only in the entire group of 22 right handed subjects and in the subgroup of 8 right eye movers a significant right ear superiority was found. In the left mover group (14 subjects) right ear superiority in dichotic listening was not significant. These results are interpreted in terms of possible interhemispheric differences in the level of "activity", facilitating or hampering perception of verbal material in the contralateral ear.     

The development of handedness and dichotic ear listening asymmetries in relation to school achievement: A longitudinal study

To assess the development of dichotic ear asymmetries and handedness, 208 male school children were evaluated in kindergarten and at Grades 2 and 5 (ages 66, 92, and 130 months of age, respectively) with a dichotic listening task and a hand preference test. The Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) also was administered at each of the three grade levels. There was significant variability in handedness scores over time only for those subjects whose scores at initial testing, that is, in kindergarten, identified them as non-right-handers. Both right and left handers had a significant increase in dichotic listening scores over time; however, only right handers had a significant right ear advantage at each evaluation. Regression analyses showed that combined hand preference scores and ear recall scores at each probe when combined accounted for almost 44% of the variance in WRAT achievement scores at Grade 5. Ear asymmetry scores, however, were not predictive of school achievement.     

The Role of Dichotic Listening Performance and Tasks of Executive Functions in Reading Impairment: A Discriminant Function Analysis

This study focused on the role of dichotic listening performance for the identification of reading impaired subtypes. Dichotic listening (DL), using verbal stimuli, has shown to be a valid measure of language lateralization. Usually, lateralization is estimated from the proportion of right ear over left ear accuracy during a free recall test procedure. However, it has been suggested that a more accurate estimate of laterality can be obtained by using a directed attention procedure. A sample of 43 reading disabled children of whom 18 showed signs of impaired language comprehension skills and 25 without language comprehension impairments, were compared to 20 age, and gender, matched controls on dichotic listening performance in both an unbiased free recall task and in a directed attention task using consonant-vowel syllables as dichotic stimuli. A laterality index was calculated for left and right ear stimuli reported during both the free recall condition and the attended ear-scores for the two directed attention conditions. Although both DL procedures yielded significant group differences, with a lower laterality score for the reading disabled compared to the controls, there was no main effect of DL-procedure or group × procedure interaction. Taken alone, DL performance could correctly classify 42% of the reading impaired samples, but together with other measures of executive functions, discriminant function analyses yielded 90.74% accuracy in classifying reading impaired children. The result indicates that DL together with tests of executive functions are valuable tools for assessment of reading impaired subjects.     

Mirror-reading in right- and left-handers

In mirror-reading, words are read from right to left and letters are read in a reverse right-to-left orientation. In one experiment we compared the ability of normal right- and left-handed subjects to mirror-read and found that the left-handers made fewer errors and could read mirror print more rapidly. In a second experiment we attempted to learn whether there is a hemifield superiority for reading mirror words and whether there are any differences between left- and right-handers in a hemifield. We found that although both right- and left-handers more rapidly detected mirror words projected to the left visual half-field, there were no differences between groups. However, in the right visual half-field, the performance of left-handers was superior to that of the right-handers. The results of the hemifield study suggest that left-handers may be superior at reading mirror words because they can more easily reverse their scanning pattern.     

Dichotic listening performance in subtypes of developmental dyslexia and a left temporal lobe brain tumor contrast group.

This study examined dichotic listening performance in three subtypes of developmental dyslexia and in children with left temporal lobe brain tumors (clinical contrast group). Each child was administered a free-recall CV syllable dichotic paradigm (30 pairs). Analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD pairwise follow-up comparison indicated that the dichotic listening performance of the left temporal lobe brain tumor contrast group (strong LEA/right ear suppression) was significantly different from those of the visual-spatial/dyseidetic (strong REA/left ear depression) and mixed (moderate REA/bilateral ear suppression) dyslexic subtypes. The language disorder/dysphonetic dyslexic subtype demonstrated a REA with right ear depression. Closer inspection of the individual performances of the language disorder/dysphonetic dyslexic subtype revealed a bimodal distribution with 12 subjects demonstrating a strong LEA/right ear suppression and 8 subjects exhibiting a strong REA/left ear depression. These results lend support for the contention that the dyslexic population is heterogeneous in nature with each subgroup exhibiting (1) a distinct neuropsychological test profile and reading pattern and (2) a pattern of performance on the dichotic listening task which is consistent with what would be expected based upon the pattern of dysfunction exhibited on neuropsychological evaluation.     

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

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

Footedness of left- and right-handers.

The performance on a simple tapping task of the hands and feet of left- and right-handers was tested. Right-handers tapped faster with their right hand and right foot. Left-handers tapped faster with their left hand and right foot. Thus, footedness follows handedness in right-handers but not in left-handers. Left-handers showed smaller left/right differences than right-handers in both hand and foot performance. These data are in loose agreement with the modified genetic theory of handedness proposed by Annett (Hand preference and the laterality of cerebral speech, Cortex, 1975).     

Right-nostril advantage for discrimination of odors

Olfactory discrimination was tested with eight pairs of odors presented to each nostril of each subject. Ninety-nine subjects were tested; there were equal numbers of left- and right-handers, as well as both sexes. Detection thresholds for phenylethyl alcohol were measured separately in each nostril using a forced-choice staircase procedure. In addition, a verbal dichotic listening test known to be sensitive to language lateralization was administered. Results indicated that discrimination performance was significantly better when the stimuli were presented to the right nostril than when they were presented to the left, but no differences between the nostrils in detection thresholds were found. The right-nostril advantage did not vary as a function of sex or handedness, and did not bear any relation to language lateralization as measured via dichotic listening. The asymmetry for olfactory discrimination replicates an earlier study and is interpreted in terms of a possible specialization of function within the right cerebral hemisphere.     

Effects of chlorpromazine on lateralization,cued reaction time,and dichotic listening

In a double-blind cross-over design sixteen subjects took 50 mg of chlorpromazine or placebo in tablet form 2 hours prior to completing a dichotic listening and simple reaction time task with and without warnings. In the simple reaction time task, blocks of 80 stimuli were presented to each ear with and without warning cue under drug and placebo conditions. On the dichotic listening task the expected right ear advantage for reporting digits was obtained. While the drug had no main effect on the number of errors, there were more trials on which an ear advantage was present than in the placebo condition. In the reaction time task there were main effects of drug, warning cue and foreperiod: warnings facilitated reaction; chlorpromazine retarded reaction; and reaction times were most facilitated by warning foreperiods in excess of 1200ms. Several findings were of interest: On uncued trials, with placebo, right ear responses were faster than those for stimuli presented to the left ear. Drug also interacted with foreperiod duration. These results were interpreted in the light of Tucker and Williamson’s (1984) review of the role of Pribram and McGuinness’s Arousal and Activation sytems in lateralized behavior.     

Effects of chlorpromazine on lateralization, cued reaction time, and dichotic listening

In a double-blind cross-over design sixteen subjects took 50 mg of chlorpromazine or placebo in tablet form 2 hours prior to completing a dichotic listening and simple reaction time task with and without warnings. In the simple reaction time task, blocks of 80 stimuli were presented to each ear with and without warning cue under drug and placebo conditions. On the dichotic listening task the expected right ear advantage for reporting digits was obtained. While the drug had no main effect on the number of errors, there were more trials on which an ear advantage was present than in the placebo condition. In the reaction time task there were main effects of drug, warning cue and foreperiod: warnings facilitated reaction; chlorpromazine retarded reaction; and reaction times were most facilitated by warning foreperiods in excess of 1200ms. Several findings were of interest: On uncued trials, with placebo, right ear responses were faster than those for stimuli presented to the left ear. Drug also interacted with foreperiod duration. These results were interpreted in the light of Tucker and Williamson’s (1984) review of the role of Pribram and McGuinness’s Arousal and Activation sytems in lateralized behavior.     

On the relation between auditory spatial attention and auditory perceptual asymmetries

Laterality investigators have typically interpreted any perceptual asymmetry as a direct expression of the functional organization of the brain. However, many other confounding factors, including the asymmetric distribution of attention, may also contribute to either the magnitude or the direction of any of these advantages. In two experiments, attention was manipulated in a dichotic listening paradigm by presenting a preexposural tone cue to the ear from which the subject was required to report. The time available to orient attention was manipulated by varying the time period between the onset of the cue and the onset of the trial (stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA).Results indicated that a right ear advantage for the identification of verbal material obtained at a 150-msec SOA was almost completely eliminated at an SOA of 450 msec. In addition, the direction of the ear advantage for emotion identification was found to depend on task difficulty. A left ear advantage, apparent when task difficulty was minimal, was reversed to a right ear advantage when difficulty was increased. These data are taken as evidence that, when subjects are faced with a difficult dichotic task, there is a general tendency for right-handed subjects to bias their attention toward the right ear. Such a tendency is shown not only to have likely seriously compromised the results of past investigations of functional perceptual asymmetries but also to be inconsistent with previously proposed theories of dichotic listening performance.     

On the relation between auditory spatial attention and auditory perceptual asymmetries.

Laterality investigators have typically interpreted any perceptual asymmetry as a direct expression of the functional organization of the brain. However, many other confounding factors, including the asymmetric distribution of attention, may also contribute to either the magnitude or the direction of any of these advantages. In two experiments, attention was manipulated in a dichotic listening paradigm by presenting a preexposural tone cue to the ear from which the subject was required to report. The time available to orient attention was manipulated by varying the time period between the onset of the cue and the onset of the trial (stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA). Results indicated that a right ear advantage for the identification of verbal material obtained at a 150-msec SOA was almost completely eliminated at an SOA of 450 msec. In addition, the direction of the ear advantage for emotion identification was found to depend on task difficulty. A left ear advantage, apparent when task difficulty was minimal, was reversed to a right ear advantage when difficulty was increased. These data are taken as evidence that, when subjects are faced with a difficult dichotic task, there is a general tendency for right-handed subjects to bias their attention toward the right ear. Such a tendency is shown not only to have likely seriously compromised the results of past investigations of functional perceptual asymmetries but also to be inconsistent with previously proposed theories of dichotic listening performance.     

Cerebral specialization and verbal-motor integration in adults with and without Down syndrome

Persons with Down syndrome (DS) tend to exhibit an atypical left ear-right hemisphere advantage (LEA) for the perception of speech sounds. In the present study, a recent adaptation of the dichotic listening procedure was employed to examine interhemispheric integration during the performance of a lateralized verbal-motor task. Although adults with DS (n = 13) demonstrated a right ear-left hemisphere advantage in the dichotic-motor task similar to their peers with (n = 14) and without undifferentiated developmental disabilities (n = 14), they showed an LEA in a free recall dichotic listening task. Based on a comparison of the laterality indices obtained from both dichotic listening procedures, it appears that the manifestation of lateral ear advantages in persons DS may dependent on the response requirements of the task.     

Multitask investigation of individual differences in hemispheric asymmetry

Right-handed subjects (N = 120) participated in four different laterality tasks designed to measure aspects of cerebral hemisphere asymmetry: identification of dichotically presented consonant-vowel syllables (CVs), examination of the effects of concurrent repetition of CVs and concurrent anagram solution on finger-tapping by the right and left hands, lateralized identification of CVs presented tachistoscopically to the left and right visual fields, and left/right biases on a free-vision face task involving judgments of emotion. Ear differences in the dichotic listening task were related to the pattern of lateralized interference in the dual-task finger-tapping paradigm. There were no other significant relations between pairs of tasks, but when the present results are considered in the light of other recent experiments, there appears to be a relation between lateral bias on the free-vision face task and visual field differences in tachistoscopic identification. The pattern of results has implications for hypothesized individual differences among right-handers in cerebral dominance for verbal processes, input pathway dominance, and asymmetric arousal of the two cerebral hemispheres.     

Dichotic listening and left-right confusion

The present study examined the relationship between individual differences in dichotic listening (DL) and the susceptibility to left-right confusion (LRC). Thirty-six men and 59 women completed a consonant-vowel DL test, a behavioral LRC task, and an LRC self-rating questionnaire. Significant negative correlations between overall DL accuracy and LRC rates in men (behavioral task) and self-ratings in women, indicated that the more participants struggled with left-right discrimination, the fewer DL syllables they reported correctly. However, there was no relationship between LRC and the typical right ear advantage. Thus, there is a sex- and task-dependent relationship between LRC and overall DL accuracy, but not between LRC and ear asymmetry. It is concluded that (a) atypical ear asymmetries, as in certain clinical populations, cannot be explained by associated deficits in left-right discrimination, and (b) LRC can negatively affect task performance, even when participants do not have to make explicit "left" versus "right" decisions.