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.     

Selective attention, visual laterality, awareness, and perceiving the meaning of parafoveally presented words

Four experiments are reported investigating the effect of selective attention on the semantic encoding of parafoveally presented words. In Experiments 1 and 2 a right visual field (RVF) performance bias was found when subjects attended to words that could appear either left or right of centre (attend-side condition). When subjects attended centrally and ignored lateral distractor words (attendcentre condition) there was an inhibitory effect of word meaning from left visual field (LVF) distractors. Both inhibitory and facilitatory effects of semantic category were observed from unattended words in Experiments 3 and 4. The pattern of effects depended upon the direction of spatial bias in an attend-side condition. Both kinds of effect occurred even for subjects who were unable to make consciously directed semantic category decisions to words at the same eccentricity (4°) and exposure time (15 msec) as ignored distractors in the attend-centre condition. Implications of these findings for theories of selective attention, for the issue of semantic encoding independent of conscious awareness, and for theories of the relationship between lateral performance biases and functional hemispheric asymmetry are discussed.     

Are variations among right-handed individuals in perceptual asymmetries caused by characteristic arousal differences between hemispheres?

We propose that much of the variance among right-handed subjects in perceptual asymmetries on standard behavioral measures of laterality arises from individual differences in characteristic patterns of asymmetric hemispheric arousal. Dextrals with large right-visual-field (RVF) advantages on a tachistoscopic syllable-identification task (assumed to reflect characteristically higher left-hemisphere than right-hemisphere arousal) outperformed those having weak or no visual-field asymmetries (assumed to reflect characteristically higher right-hemisphere than left-hemisphere arousal). The two groups were equal, however, in asymmetries of error patterns that are thought to indicate linguistic or nonlinguistic encoding strategies. For both groups, relations between visual fields in the ability to discriminate the accuracy of performance followed the pattern of syllable identification itself, suggesting that linguistic and metalinguistic processes are based on the same laterally specialized functions. Subjects with strong RVF advantages had a pessimistic bias for rating performance, and those with weak or no asymmetries had an optimistic bias, particularly for the left visual field (LVF). This is concordant with evidence that the arousal level of the right hemisphere is closely related to affective mood. Finally, consistent with the arousal model, leftward asymmetries on a free-vision face-processing task became larger as RVF advantages on the syllable task diminished and as optimistic biases for the LVF, relative to the RVF, increased.     

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.     

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.     

Location, location, location: how it affects the neighborhood (effect)

Reaction times in lexical decision are more sensitive to a words' length and orthographic-neighborhood density when the stimulus is presented to the left visual field (LVF) than to the right visual field (RVF). We claim that the length effect is equivalent to the neighborhood effect, and propose a novel explanation of why the LVF, but not the RVF, is sensitive to density, based on different firing rates of abstract-letter representations encoding letters falling in the LVF versus RVF. We support this proposal with a large-scale implemented model of lexical decision utilizing spiking units, which provides a reasonable fit to the data from the English Lexicon Project under simulated central presentation, while replicating the observed hemifield asymmetries under simulated lateralized presentation.     

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).     

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.     

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

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

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.     

Lateral word recognition: Effects of unilateral and bilateral presentation, asynchrony of bilateral presentation, and forced order of report

This experiment enquired: (1) whether right visual field (RVF) recognition superiority was greater in bilateral than in unilateral word presentation; (2) whether left field-favouring attentional or recall sets could be induced by presenting left visual field (LVF) words 20 msec prior to RVF words or by instructions to report LVF words prior to RVF words. Results showed: (1) all conditions studied yielded significant RVF superiority; (2) RVF superiority magnitude was significantly greater in bilateral than in unilateral presentation, suggesting the tenability of hypotheses that different mechanisms operate in these conditions; (3) neither earlier delivery nor earlier report of LVF words altered the pattern of RVF superiority in bilateral presentation, the later result demonstrating that differential receptive organization rather than differential recall of the two stimuli is responsible for RVF superiority in bilateral presentation.     

Orientation of attention to nonconsciously recognised famous faces

The nonconscious orientation of attention to famous faces was investigated using masked 17 ms stimulus exposure. Each trial presented a simultaneous pair of one famous and one unfamiliar face, matched on physical characteristics, one each in left visual field (LVF) and right visual field (RVF). These were followed by a dot probe in either LVF or RVF to which participants made a speeded two-alternative forced-choice discrimination response. Participants subsequently evaluated the affective valence (good/evil) of the famous persons on a 7-point scale. Higher accuracy of dot probe discrimination in the same visual field (VF) as the famous face suggested that attention was oriented towards faces of persons evaluated “good”, but a reverse orientation effect was observed for those evaluated “evil”. The awareness check presented the same face pairs under the same conditions, and participants were at chance in a task of selecting the famous face in each pair. The results suggest that famous faces can be identified without awareness, and that attention is attracted by the faces of famous persons not regarded as “evil”.     

Components of the laterality effect in letter recognition: Asymmetries in iconic storage

A partial report procedure and a backward masking paradigm were employed to explore lateral asymmetries in components of letter recognition. Stimulus displays were displaced off-centre into the left visual field (LVF) or the right visual field (RVF). Visual field differences in the effect of a delayed backward mask indicated an RVF superiority in the rate of read-out or encoding. Comparison of masked and unmasked full report also yielded estimates of iconic persistence. The persistence of these peripheral displays was surprisingly brief, although it was significantly longer in the LVF (₅₇ ms) than in the RVF (₃₄ ms). Precueing by colour and by location produced a larger partial report advantage in the RVF, reflecting a superiority in selective sampling. With postcueing no partial report effect was obtained at any delay, and this failure was attributed to the briefness of the iconic persistence.     

Automatic semantic priming in the left and right hemispheres

We investigated hemispheric differences and inter-hemispheric transfer of facilitation in automatic semantic priming, using prime-target pairs composed of words of the same category but not associated (e.g. skirt-glove), and a blank-target baseline condition. Reaction time and accuracy were measured at short (300 ms) intervals between prime and target onsets, using a go/no-go task to discriminate between word or non-word targets. Reaction times were facilitated more for target words presented in the right visual field (RVF) compared to the left visual field (LVF), and targets presented in RVF were primed in both visual fields, whereas targets presented in LVF were primed by primes in the LVF only. These results suggest that both hemispheres are capable of automatic priming at very short stimulus onset asymmetries (SOA), but cross-hemisphere priming occurs only in the left hemisphere.     

About face: left-hemisphere involvement in processing physiognomies

Three experiments were concluded to investigate the involvement of the two cerebral hemispheres in processing faces. Perceptual discrimination of pairs of faces was equally speedy overall when the stimuli were presented in the right visual field (RVF) or left visual field (LVF). For faces differing in one or two features, however, a qualitatively different pattern of results was obtained for the two visual fields, and an RVF advantage emerged when the difference lay in the upper part of the faces (Experiment 1). An examination of the discriminability of the facial features from which the faces were constructed (Experiment 2) showed that the processes involved in RVF comparisons of faces were not dependent on the saliency of the features but, rather, followed a top-to-bottom serial analysis of the stimuli; the speed of the processing involved in LVF presentations was a function of the degree of similarity of the different comparison faces. Evidence for a serial type of comparison faces were used (Experiment 3). It was concluded that even though comparisons were equally speedy overall in LVF and RVF presentations, qualitatively different processes take place in the two hemispheres, which prove competent at processing faces, each in its own way. Some methodological problems inherent in tachistoscopic studies are discussed, and it is proposed that the quality of the stimulus representation achieved or required for cognitive processing may be determinant in the emergence of functional hemispheric asymmetries.     

The influence of sex hormones on functional cerebral asymmetries in postmenopausal women

Studies investigating changes in functional cerebral asymmetries (FCAs) with hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle in young women have led to controversial hypotheses about an influence of estrogen (E) and/or progesterone (P) on FCAs. Based on methodical, but also on principal problems in deriving conclusions about hormone effects from correlational designs, the present study investigated hemispheric asymmetries in postmenopausal women, who received hormone replacement either with E alone (E group, n = 32), an E–P combination (E–P group, n = 29) or no hormone substitution (control group, n = 31). Speed and accuracy of responses to a word- and a face decision task, both presented laterally by means of the visual half field technique, were assessed. The control group showed the typical pattern of hemispheric asymmetry with more correct responses to verbal stimuli presented in the right visual field (RVF) and to face stimuli presented in the left visual field (LVF). A hormone-effect was demonstrable only for the verbal task, in which the E group showed an enhanced performance of the right hemisphere (LVF). The E–P group showed no significant differences to the control group or the E group. The results suggest a role of E in the modulation of FCAs at least with regard to verbal processing.     

Visual field effects in the discrimination of sine-wave gratings

The time needed to decide whether the second of two successively presented sinusoidal gratings was of a higher or lower spatial frequency than the first was measured for spatial frequencies of 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 cycles per degree (cpd) presented in either the left visual field (LVF) or right visual field (RVF). A LVF advantage was found for discriminating within the low-spatial-frequency range (i.e., 1 and 2 cpd), whereas a RVF advantage was found for discriminating within the high-spatial-frequency range (i.e., 4-12 cpd). These findings support the conclusion that hemispheric asymmetries in the processing of gratings arise when comparisons are made between the output of spatial-frequency channels.     

Visual field asymmetries in numerical size comparisons of digits, words, and signs

Visual field asymmetries were examined in American Sign Language-English bilinguals for speeded numerical size judgments of pairs of digits, number words, and number signs. Physical size of the number pairs was either congruent or incongruent with their numerical size. The results revealed a greater left visual field (LVF) interference for numbers represented as digits and a greater right visual field (RVF) interference for numbers represented as words or signs. Subjects' performance on number words and signs was also influenced by their skill in English and ASL: interference was greater in the RVF in the subjects' better language but was greater in the LVF for the less skilled language. These findings suggest that lateralization of numerical size judgments is moderated by the mode of number presentation and by prior language experience.     

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.     

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.