Psychopathy and cerebral asymmetry in semantic processing

A divided visual field (DVF) procedure was used to investigate the cerebral organization of language processes in psychopaths. The subjects consisted of four groups of 13 right-handed males: noncriminals (NC), and criminals with high (H), medium (M), and low (L) scores on the Psychopathy Checklist (Hare, 1980). The subject had to decide if a concrete noun, tachistoscopically presented in either the left (LVF) or the right visual hemifield (RVF), matched a pretrial work (SR task), or was an exemplar of a specific category (SC task) or an abstract category (AC task). There were no group differences in reaction time. As predicted, group differences in errors were confined to the AC task; Groups L and NC made fewer RVF than LVF errors (thus showing the sort of RVF advantage expected with semantic categorization), whereas the opposite was true of Group H. The results, along with those obtained in a recent dichotic listening study, lead us to speculate that psychopathy may be associated with weak or unusual lateralization of language function, and that psychopaths may have fewer left hemisphere resources for processing language than do normal individuals.     

Dividing attention within and between hemispheres: testing a multiple resources approach to limited-capacity information processing

Two experiments tested the limiting case of a multiple resources approach to resource allocation in information processing. In this framework, the left and right hemispheres are assumed to have separate, limited-capacity pools of undifferentiated resources that are not mutually accessible, so that tasks can overlap in their demand for these resources either completely, partially, or not at all. We tested all three degrees of overlap in demand for left hemisphere supplies, using dual-task methodology in which subjects were induced to pay different amounts of attention to each task. Experiment 1 compared complete and partial overlap by combining a verbal memory load with a task in which subjects named nonsense syllables briefly presented to either the left or right visual field (LVF and RVF, respectively). Experiment 2 compared complete versus no overlap by using the same verbal memory load combined with a laterally presented same-different judgment task that did not require a spoken response. Decrements from single-task performance were always more severe when the visual field task stimulus was presented to the RVF. Further, subjects in Experiment 1 were able to trade performance between tasks on both LVF and RVF trials because there was always at least some overlap in left hemisphere demand. In Experiment 2, performance trade-offs were observed on RVF (complete overlap) trials, but not on LVF trials, where no overlap in demand existed. These results contradict a single-capacity model, but they support the idea that the hemispheres' resource supplies are independent and have implications for both cerebral specialization and divided attention issues.     

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…     

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.     

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.     

Effects of Output Order on Hemispheric Asymmetry for Processing Letter Trigrams

Observers identified consonant–vowel–consonant trigrams with the letters arranged vertically by pronouncing the stimulus (treating the bottom letter as the first letter) and spelling it from bottom to top. On each trial, the trigram was presented to the left visual field/right hemisphere (LVF/RH), to the right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LH), or to both visual fields simultaneously (BILATERAL trials). Quantitative and qualitative visual field differences were identical to those found when observers used a more natural response output order, treating the top letter of the trigram as the first letter. The results suggest that, regardless of output order, attention is distributed across the three letters in a relatively slow, top-to-bottom fashion on LVF/RH and BILATERAL trials, whereas attention is distributed more rapidly and evenly across the three letters on RVF/LH trials.     

Oral report of words and word approximations presented to the left or right visual field

Subjects reported letter strings forming words, pronounceable high approximations to words, and unpronounceable low approximations to words presented tachistoscopically to the left or right visual field (LVF, RVF). (a) For number of strings totally correct, the same RVF superiority was obtained with high approximations as with words, the field difference with low approximations being negligible. (b) In contrast, for letter scores from partially correct strings, RVF superiority did not vary with string type. Finding (a) is interpreted to indicate that the left hemisphere is differentially specialized for processing words as units and that requiring oral report makes pronounceable strings processable as word-like units. Finding (b) suggests that the left hemisphere is not specialized for processing subword fragments.     

Quantitative and Qualitative Hemispheric Asymmetry for Processing Japanese Kana

Native Japanese speakers identified three-letter kana stimuli presented to the left visual field and right hemisphere (LVF/RH), to the right visual field and left hemisphere (RVF/LH), or to both visual fields and hemispheres simultaneously (BILATERAL trials). There were fewer errors on RVF/LH and BILATERAL trials than on LVF/RH trials. Qualitative analysis of error patterns indicated that there were many fewer errors of first-letter identification than of last-letter identification, suggesting top-to-bottom scanning of the kana characters. In contrast to similar studies presenting nonword letter trigrams to native English speakers, qualitative error patterns were identical for the three visual field conditions. Taken together with the results of earlier studies, the results of the present experiment indicate that the ubiquitous RVF/LH advantage reflects a left-hemisphere superiority for phonetic processing that generalizes across specific languages. At the same time, qualitative aspects of hemispheric asymmetry differ from one language to the next and may depend on such things as the way in which individual characters map onto the pronunciation of words and nonwords.     

Cerebral Asymmetries in Processing Strategies for Letter and Symbol Trigrams

Several studies have shown that laterally presented consonant–vowel–consonant (CVC) strings produce both superior performance, and a more wholistic processing strategy in the right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LHEM), and a more sequential strategy in the inferior left visual field (LVF). To determine whether these strategies are applied to other types of trigrams subjects (n= 30) were asked to identify consonant and symbol trigrams briefly projected unilaterally to the LVF or RVF, or bilaterally (the same trigram in both fields—BVF). A second group of subjects (n= 30) first practiced pronouncing consonant trigrams and then viewed them tachistoscopically. Both tasks yield RVF advantages. Symbols are processed more wholistically in the LVF, more sequentially in the RVF and in an intermediate pattern when presented bilaterally. In contrast, subjects seem to chunk letters as bigrams, and do so equally well in all fields, and visual field differences in strategies emerge for consonants only when they are pronounced. Pronounceability of consonant trigrams, assessed with ratings and vocal reaction times, was predicted by orthographic regularity. Since the RHEM has limited phonetic skills, but it, like the LHEM, is privy to information on orthographic regularity, the error pattern on consonant strings indicates non-phonetic processing, whereas the RVF wholistic strategy for consonant–vowel–consonant strings appears to reflect phonetic processing.     

Strategies of semantic categorization in the cerebral hemispheres

Strategies of semantic categorization in intact cerebral hemispheres were studied in two experiments by presenting names of typical and atypical category instances to the left visual field (LVF) (right hemisphere) or to the right visual field (RVF) (left hemisphere). The results revealed that the typicality of instances had a large effect on categorization times in the LVF in both experiments, suggesting that the right hemisphere relies strongly on a holistic, similarity-based comparison strategy. In Experiment 1, the typicality effect was weaker in the RVF than in the LVF. In Experiment 2, a typicality effect in the RVF was observed for the "four-footed animal" category but not for the "bird" category. The hypothesis that the left hemisphere employs a strategy based on defining or necessary features is not supported by the observed typicality effect in the "four-footed animal" category. Instead, it is suggested that the left hemisphere may be able to categorize on the basis of prestored instance-category knowledge. When such knowledge is not available (e.g., as for four-footed animals), a similarity-based comparison strategy is employed by the left hemisphere.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Laterality effects in identification of caricatures and photographs of famous faces

Recent evidence suggests that memory representations of familiar faces may exaggerate distinctive information as do caricatures (G. Rhodes, S. Brennan, & S. Carey, Cognitive Psychology, 1987). Therefore caricatures should be effective representations of faces and should yield a right hemisphere processing advantage, as do photographs of faces. Photographs and caricatures of famous faces were presented to the left visual (LVF), the right visual field (RVF), and centrally (CVF), in a name-face verification task. There was a LVF (right hemisphere) advantage for both caricatures and photographs on name-face mismatches but no VF difference for matches. These results were true for both accuracy and reaction time. Processing strategy differences that may account for the difference between matches and mismatches are discussed. Performance was generally better for photographs than for caricatures, irrespective of visual field condition.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Hemispheric asymmetry and pun comprehension: when cowboys have sore calves

Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded as healthy participants listened to puns such as "During branding, cowboys have sore calves." To assess hemispheric differences in pun comprehension, visually presented probes that were either highly related (COW), moderately related (LEG), or unrelated, were presented in either the left or right visual half field (LVF/RVF). The sensitivity of each hemisphere to the different meanings evoked by the pun was assessed by ERP relatedness effects with presentation to the LVF and the RVF. In Experiment 1, the inter-stimulus interval between the pun and the onset of the visual probe was 0 ms; in Experiment 2, this value was 500 ms. In Experiment 1, both highly and moderately related probes elicited similar priming effects with RVF presentation. Relative to their unrelated counterparts, related probes elicited less negative ERPs in the N400 interval (300-600 ms post-onset), and more positive ERPs 600-900 ms post-onset, suggesting both meanings of the pun were equally active in the left hemisphere. LVF presentation yielded similar priming effects (less negative N400 and a larger positivity thereafter) for the highly related probes, but no effects for moderately related probes. In Experiment 2, similar N400 priming effects were observed for highly and moderately related probes presented to both visual fields. Compared to unrelated probes 600-900 ms post-onset, related probes elicited a centro-parietal positivity with RVF presentation, but a fronto-polar positivity with LVF presentation. Results suggest that initially, the different meanings evoked by a pun are both active in the left hemisphere, but only the most highly related meaning is active in the right hemisphere. By 500 ms, both meanings are active in both hemispheres.     

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.