Head and body hemispace to left and right III: Vibrotactile stimulation and sensory and motor components

Response latencies were measured to vibrotactile stimulation delivered to the forefingers of the left or right hands which were positioned ipsilaterally or contralaterally (across the midline) in left or right hemispace. While the two hands did not differ in speed of response, either hand performed better when located in right hemispace (experiment 1). This effect was greatly reduced, though not eliminated, with 90 degrees lateral head turn, when performance was better with stimulation and responding in right-of-head hemispace, but not right-of-body hemispace (experiment 2). When different hands received stimulation and initiated responses, and were located in either the same or opposite hemispace, right-hemispace superiority was found to be motor rather than sensory (experiment 3). These findings are discussed in the context of the true and the phenomenological midline and the clinical syndrome of hemineglect.     

The influence of unimanual response on pseudoneglect magnitude

Various factors influence the degree of leftward error (pseudoneglect) (Bowers & Heilman, 1980) that typifies the performance of normal subjects in line bisection tasks (Jewell & McCourt, 2000). The results of this experiment show that unimanual responding also exerts a subtle but significant modulating influence on spatial attention, as indexed by the differential magnitude of pseudoneglect. Using a forced-choice tachistoscopic line bisection protocol, 184 subjects (92 male and 92 female) bisected horizontally oriented lines (22.3 degrees wide x 0.39 degrees height) presented to central vision in two conditions, in which bisection responses were executed via button presses using the first two fingers of either the left (LH) or right (RH) hand. Perceived line midpoint deviated significantly leftward of veridical (p <.05) in both conditions. There was no significant influence of subject sex (p >.05). A significant influence of unimanual response was revealed (p <.05) where pseudoneglect magnitude was greater in the LH than the RH condition. The results are interpreted within the framework of the activation-orientation theory of attentional asymmetry.     

文字线索浏览方向、空间位置与移动光标对伪忽视的影响

采用线段平分任务,以无文字线索作为基线条件,考察文字线索的浏览方向、空间位置和移动光标对具有两种不同方向阅读经验的熟练双语者伪忽视的影响。结果发现,无文字线索条件下,光标从左往右方向移动时被试的判断偏向于线段中点的右侧,而从右往左移动时,偏向于线段中点的左侧。在有文字线索条件下发现,文字线索的浏览方向和空间位置的交互作用显著,简单效应检验显示文字线索的浏览方向和空间位置一致时伪忽视明显,不一致时伪忽视消失。结果表明,文字线索浏览方向、空间位置与移动光标能够影响伪忽视。伪忽视的存在和消失,不仅与眼球运动有关,还有与大脑两半球的激活水平有关。研究结果支持了视觉扫描假设和激活朝向假设。     

Association of Fine Motor Loss and Allodynia in Fibromyalgia: An fNIRS Study

Recent studies showed that fine motor control dysfunction was observed in fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome as well as allodynia. However, brain signatures of this association still remain unclear. In this study, finger tapping task (FTT) and median nerve stimulation (MNS) were applied to both hands of 15 FM patients and healthy controls (HC) to understand this relationship. Hemodynamic activity was measured simultaneously using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Experiments were analyzed separately by using 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA. Results for the FTT experiment revealed that HC showed higher activity than FM patients in bilateral superior parietal gyrus (SPG), left supramarginal gyrus (SMG) and right somatosensory cortex (SI). Furthermore, right-hand FTT resulted in higher activity than left-hand FTT in left SPG, left SI and right motor cortex (MI). In the MNS experiment, FM patients showed higher activity than HC in bilateral SPG, right SMG, right SI and right middle frontal gyrus (MFG). Negative correlation was observed in left SPG between FTT and MNS activities. Besides, MNS activity in left SPG was negatively correlated with left-hand pain threshold.This study revealed that left SPG might be an important indicator to associate fine motor loss and allodynia in FM.     

Representational pseudoneglect in line bisection

"Representational pseudoneglect" refers to a bias toward the left side of space that occurs when visual information is remembered. Recently a number of demonstrations of such representational pseudoneglect have appeared. In the present article, we report an experiment in which we adopted the classic line bisection paradigm to study representational pseudoneglect. Participants bisected horizontal lines that were shown in extrapersonal space. When the lines were visible on the screen, there was no evidence of any leftward bias. However, when lines were bisected from memory, the participants demonstrated a clear bias to the left. This is the first demonstration of a leftward bias in the bisection of remembered visually presented lines.     

Note on hand use in the manipulation of joysticks by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

In a recent article MacNeilage, Studdert-Kennedy, and Lindblom (1987) proposed that nonhuman primate handedness may be contingent on the specific task requirements with visual-spatial tasks yielding left-hand preferences and fine motor tasks producing right-hand preferences. This study reports hand preferences in the manipulation of joysticks by 2 rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and 3 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Reach data were also collected on these same subjects and served as a basis for comparison with preference data for manipulation of the joystick. The data indicated that all 5 subjects demonstrated significant right-hand preferences in manipulating the joystick. In contrast, no significant hand preferences were found for the reach data. Reaction time data also indicated that the right hand could perform a perceptual-motor task better than the left hand in all 5 subjects. Overall, the data indicate that reach tasks may not be sensitive enough measures to produce reliable hand preferences, whereas tasks that assess fine motor control produce significant hand preferences.     

Bisection of shapes and lines: analysis of the visual and motor aspects of pseudoneglect

This study examined the visual and motor components of pseudoneglect as expressed on horizontal bisection tasks. Ten participants were tested on bisection of lines and elliptical shapes and judgement of pretransected lines. Results showed the same magnitude of leftward error on all three tasks, in contrast to previous findings for patients with visuospatial neglect who are known to bisect ellipses and circles much more accurately than lines. Participants' mean line bisection error was significantly further to the left than the mean subjective midpoint found on the judgement task. The findings contradict the claim that the visual component of pseudoneglect is caused by the same mechanism that causes visuospatial neglect but support the hypothesis that the motor component of pseudoneglect is similar to directional hypometria.     

What effect can rhythmic finger tapping have on the phonological similarity effect?

The effects of rhythmic finger tapping on the phonological similarity effect were investigated in two experiments. In both, subjects were tested for serial recall of visually presented letter sequences that were either phonologically similar or dissimilar. The letter sequences had to be remembered under three tapping conditions: right-hand tapping, left-hand tapping, and a no-tapping control. Experiment 1 showed clear phonological similarity effects in both the control and the left-hand tapping conditions, but not in the right-hand tapping condition, when recall responses were written with the right hand. When the number of tapping practice trials was fixed at two and recall was vocal in Experiment 2, the phonological similarity effect was eliminated in both the right-hand and the left-hand tapping conditions. These results suggest that some form of speech motor programs played an important role in serial recall.     

Left non-dominant hand mirror writing

A 38-year-old right-handed woman, who had suffered a left cerebral hemisphere infarction, was studied. She developed right hemiparesis, motor and sensory aphasia, and left hand mirror writing. All possible brain mechanisms involved in writing, either perceptual or motor, were investigated in search of the one responsible for her mirror writing; however, no abnormality was detected. On examination of the left handwriting, in the directionality of writing tracings as related to the body midline, we detected a lack of inversion of the right handwriting motor patterns--at the moment they are transmitted from the left to the right cerebral hemisphere--implicating a motor rather than a perceptual mechanism.     

Asymmetries in the spatial localization of transformed targets

This study was designed to examine the contribution of the right cerebral hemisphere in the spatial localization of visual targets for manual aiming. Visual targets were briefly presented to the right and left fields and subjects were required to point either to the target location, or a "mirror" image of the target location with their right or left index finger. Whereas reaction times were faster for left-hand pointing than for right-hand pointing, there was no differential effect of the mirror image transformation. This suggests that left-hand reaction time advantages are more related to right hemisphere involvement in the spatial parameterization of the movement than spatial localization of the target.     

Visual line bisection in sinistrals and dextrals as a function of hemispace, hand, and scan direction

Visual line bisection was investigated in 26 sinistral and 24 dextral subjects as a function of hemispace, hand and scan direction. An ANOVA revealed significant main effects for hand preference, due to the mean bisection errors of dextral subjects being significantly leftward of those of sinistral subjects; for hand, due to the bisection errors of the left hand being significantly to the left of the right hand; and for scan, due to the bisection errors following a left scan being significantly to the left of a right scan. One significant interaction was found, that between hand and direction of scan, due to a significant difference between left and right hands following a scan from the left but not following a scan from the right. For dextral subjects the leftward bisection errors of the left and right hands following a scan from the left, but not for a scan from the right, differed significantly from the midpoint. For sinistral subjects the leftward bisection errors following a scan from the left and rightward bisection errors following a scan from the right differed significantly from the midpoint for the left hand but not for the right hand. No significant main effect or interactions for hemispace were found. This confirms that both sinistral and dextral subjects display pseudoneglect when using their preferred hand and scanning from the left. However, sinistrals, but not dextrals, will display reversed pseudoneglect when using their preferred hand and adopting a scan direction from the right. These results are discussed in terms of the interaction between three factors, whose influence can jointly and severally produce misbisections, hemispheric specialisation for visuospatial function, hemispheric activation for a manual response, and the allocation of visual attention.     

The effects of focal and global attentional systems on spatial biases

The background page on which a stimulus is presented can influence the allocation of attention to that stimulus. The purpose of this study was to learn if there are hemispheric asymmetries in how background distraction affects attentional processing. Asymmetries were investigated by having right eye dominant subjects perform line bisections and manipulating the side of background distraction (right versus left), the eye of regard (right versus left), and the type of attention allocated (focal versus global). Overall subjects bisected lines to the left of center (pseudoneglect) and when viewing with the right eye (versus left) deviated more to the left. Subjects had more background distraction when viewing symbol than solid lines. Although overall, bias did not differ with the side of background distraction or the line being on one side or the other, when subjects viewed symbol, but not solid lines, this leftward bias was increased when the line was displaced to the right, thereby increasing the size of the left sided background. These findings suggest that when engaging the left hemisphere by using focused attention and placing the line on the right side, there is more distraction than when the right hemisphere is engaged.     

The valence-specific laterality effect in free viewing conditions: The influence of sex, handedness, and response bias

The right hemisphere has often been viewed as having a dominant role in the processing of emotional information. Other evidence indicates that both hemispheres process emotional information but their involvement is valence specific, with the right hemisphere dealing with negative emotions and the left hemisphere preferentially processing positive emotions. This has been found under both restricted (Reuter-Lorenz & Davidson, 1981) and free viewing conditions (Jansari, Tranel, & Adophs, 2000). It remains unclear whether the valence-specific laterality effect is also sex specific or is influenced by the handedness of participants. To explore this issue we repeated Jansari et al.'s free-viewing laterality task with 78 participants. We found a valence-specific laterality effect in women but not men, with women discriminating negative emotional expressions more accurately when the face was presented on the left-hand side and discriminating positive emotions more accurately when those faces were presented on the right-hand side. These results indicate that under free viewing conditions women are more lateralised for the processing of facial emotion than are men. Handedness did not affect the lateralised processing of facial emotion. Finally, participants demonstrated a response bias on control trials, where facial emotion did not differ between the faces. Participants selected the left-hand side more frequently when they believed the expression was negative and the right-hand side more frequently when they believed the expression was positive. This response bias can cause a spurious valence-specific laterality effect which might have contributed to the conflicting findings within the literature.     

视觉空间伪忽视与表征伪忽视神经机制的异同

伪忽视（pseudoneglect）是指个体存在的轻微偏左的不对称空间注意,而视觉空间伪忽视（visuo-spatial pseudoneglect）和表征伪忽视(representational pseudoneglect)是其两种主要表现形式。研究初期,研究者认为两种伪忽视基于相同的注意定向左偏机制,但近年来研究发现,它们仍存在神经机制的差异。本文主要从两种伪忽视神经机制的异同出发,梳理分析近期研究结果,以期增进对伪忽视的理解。未来研究可以从认知时间进程角度或设计更为完善的研究范式进一步探讨这两种伪忽视神经机制的异同。     

Asymmetrical hand use in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) in tactually and visually regulated tasks

Asymmetrical hand use by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) was investigated in a series of tactually and visually guided tasks. The 1st experiment recorded manual preferences of 29 monkeys for solving a haptic discrimination task in a hanging posture. There was a left-hand population bias: 21 monkeys had a left-hand bias, 4 a right-hand bias, and 4 no bias. The 2nd experiment, 4 tasks with 23 to 51 monkeys, investigated the critical components of the 1st experiment by varying the posture (hanging, sitting, or tripedal) and the sensory requirements (tactile or visual). Posture influenced hand bias, with a population-level left-hand bias in hanging and sitting postures, but an almost symmetrical distribution in the tripedal posture. A left-hand bias was found for both sensory modalities, but the bias was stronger in the tactual tasks. Results suggest a possible right-hemisphere specialization in the rhesus for tactile, visual, or spatial processing.     

Motor preparation of manual aiming at a visual target manipulated in size, luminance contrast, and location

We conducted two experiments to investigate whether the motor preparation of manual aiming to a visual target is affected by either the physical characteristics (size or luminance contrast) or spatial characteristics (location) of the target. Reaction time (RT) of both finger lifting (ie stimulus-detection time) and manual aiming (ie movement-triggering time) to the onset of the target was measured. The difference of RT (DRT) between two tasks (ie the difference of task complexity) was examined to clarify the temporal characteristics of manual aiming per se during visuomotor integration. Results show classical characteristics: RT decreased as either the target size or luminance contrast increased. Furthermore, the task-complexity and target-location factors significantly interacted with each other, where the aiming RT was longer than the finger-lifting RT and the effects of target location on RT differed for each task. However, the task factor did not interact with either the size or luminance-contrast factor, implying that the motor preparation of manual aiming is associated with the spatial characteristics rather than the physical characteristics of the target. Inspection of DRT revealed that the time needed for motor preparation for an ipsilateral target was significantly shorter than that for a contralateral target. This was the case both for the left and for the right hand. Foveal targets required longer processing time, implying a disadvantageous function of motor preparation for the gazed target. The left-hand superiority for the target appearing in the left visual field was also observed. Such lateralised effect and left-hand advantage to the left visual field in manual aiming suggest that visuospatial information processing is activated during the preparation of aiming action, with faster processing in the right hemisphere.     

Cultural Difference in Hand Preference: Evidence from India and Japan

Indian (N = 400) and Japanese (N = 502) adult subjects were examined for their hand preference on a 7-point scale (1 = left always, 7 = right always) of the 32-item Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire (Steenhuis & Bryden, 1989). Factor analyses of the data yielded a two-factorial structure of hand preference: skilled and unskilled. Interaction of Culture × Hand preference indicated that Indians had more right-hand preference for unskilled activities whereas Japanese subjects had more right-hand preference for skilled activities. Further analyses revealed that the frequency of middle category responses was more common in Japanese subjects. Indian subjects were found to give more extreme responses for either right- or left-hand preference. Findings are discussed in the light of cultural training given to the individuals in these two societies, which are essentially collective in nature.     

Asymmetry of Verbal-Manual Interference - Dissociation Between Rate and Variability in Left-Handers

In two experiments, 48 right-handed and 48 left-handed adults, respectively, performed speeded and consistent finger tapping with and without concurrent oral reading. Interference was measured in terms of change in tap-to-tap rate and variability. Experiment 1 confirmed a previous report that concurrent reading decreases the rate of speeded finger tapping and increases the rate of consistent tapping in right-handers, and that the right hand is affected more than the left. Experiment 2 showed that, for left-handers, concurrent reading decreases the rate of left-hand tapping more than right-hand tapping but increases the variability of the right hand more than the left. The double dissociation in left-handers between hand and dependent variable suggests that the speed and variability reflect different mechanisms of intertask interference. More generally, the findings illustrate the multidimensionality of motor performance and the risk of making inferences about neural organization on the basis of a single dependent measure.     

Prism adaptation in alternately exposed hands

We assessed intermanual transfer of the proprioceptive realignment aftereffects of prism adaptation in right-handers by examining alternate target pointing with the two hands for 40 successive trials, 20 with each hand. Adaptation for the right hand was not different as a function of exposure sequence order or postexposure test order, in contrast with adaptation for the left hand. Adaptation was greater for the left hand when the right hand started the alternate pointing than when the sequence of target-pointing movements started with the left hand. Also, the largest left-hand adaptation appeared when that hand was tested first after exposure. Terminal error during exposure varied in cycles for the two hands, converging on zero when the right hand led, but no difference appeared between the two hands when the left hand led. These results suggest that transfer of proprioceptive realignment occurs from the right to the left hand during both exposure and postexposure testing. Such transfer reflects the process of maintaining spatial alignment between the two hands. Normally, the left hand appears to be calibrated with the right-hand spatial map, and when the two hands are misaligned, the left-hand spatial map is realigned with the right-hand spatial map.