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 neural basis of the right visual field advantage in reading: an MEG analysis using virtual electrodes

Right-handed participants respond more quickly and more accurately to written words presented in the right visual field (RVF) than in the left visual field (LVF). Previous attempts to identify the neural basis of the RVF advantage have had limited success. Experiment 1 was a behavioral study of lateralized word naming which established that the words later used in Experiment 2 showed a reliable RVF advantage which persisted over multiple repetitions. In Experiment 2, the same words were interleaved with scrambled words and presented in the LVF and RVF to right-handed participants seated in an MEG scanner. Participants read the real words silently and responded "pattern" covertly to the scrambled words. A beamformer analysis created statistical maps of changes in oscillatory power within the brain. Those whole-brain maps revealed activation of the reading network by both LVF and RVF words. Virtual electrode analyses used the same beamforming method to reconstruct the responses to real and scrambled words in three regions of interest in both hemispheres. The middle occipital gyri showed faster and stronger responses to contralateral than to ipsilateral stimuli, with evidence of asymmetric channeling of information into the left hemisphere. The left mid fusiform gyrus at the site of the 'visual word form area' responded more strongly to RVF than to LVF words. Activity in speech-motor cortex was lateralized to the left hemisphere, and stronger to RVF than LVF words, which is interpreted as representing the proximal cause of the RVF advantage for naming written words.     

Error monitoring in the hemispheres: the effect of lateralized feedback on lexical decision.

Does each hemisphere have its own system for monitoring and responding to errors? Three experiments investigate the effect of presenting lateralized accuracy feedback in a bilateral lexical decision task. We presented feedback after each trial in either the left visual field (LVF) or right visual field (RVF). In Experiment 1 the feedback stimuli were faces smiling or frowning, in Experiment 2 we used colored squares, and Experiment 3 tested the effect of verbal feedback. Negative feedback presented in the LVF tended to improve performance on the following trial, while the same negative feedback in the RVF tended to disrupt performance on the following trial. This result was strongest with the faces as feedback, was less pronounced with colored squares, and disappeared with verbal feedback. The results are interpreted as suggesting a right hemisphere superiority for error monitoring that depends on the mode of feedback.     

Hemisphere specialization of Go experts in visuospatial processing

To investigate hemisphere function of experts, Go experts and novices were given two Salthouse-type visuospatial tasks. In Experiment 1, stimuli of 4 digits in 6 cells were projected to the left (LVF) or right visual field (RVF). There was no prominent group difference in identification of digits and locations. In Experiment 2, stimuli of 4 digits in 16 cells were projected to the LVF or RVF. Go experts showed more accurate performance than novices. Both groups showed the same laterality, an RVF advantage, in the number identification. However, in the location identification, Go experts showed no visual field difference, whereas novices showed an RVF advantage. Based on these findings, the relationship between task demand and hemisphere function of experts is discussed.     

Interhemispheric cooperation and non-cooperation during word recognition: evidence for callosal transfer dysfunction in dyslexic adults

Participants report briefly-presented words more accurately when two copies are presented, one in the left visual field (LVF) and another in the right visual field (RVF), than when only a single copy is presented. This effect is known as the 'redundant bilateral advantage' and has been interpreted as evidence for interhemispheric cooperation. We investigated the redundant bilateral advantage in dyslexic adults and matched controls as a means of assessing communication between the hemispheres in dyslexia. Consistent with previous research, normal adult readers in Experiment 1 showed significantly higher accuracy on a word report task when identical word stimuli were presented bilaterally, compared to unilateral RVF or LVF presentation. Dyslexics, however, did not show the bilateral advantage. In Experiment 2, words were presented above fixation, below fixation or in both positions. In this experiment both dyslexics and controls benefited from the redundant presentation. Experiment 3 combined whole words in one visual field with word fragments in the other visual field (the initial and final letters separated by spaces). Controls showed a bilateral advantage but dyslexics did not. In Experiments 1 and 3, the dyslexics showed significantly lower accuracy for LVF trials than controls, but the groups did not differ for RVF trials. The findings suggest that dyslexics have a problem of interhemispheric integration and not a general problem of processing two lexical inputs simultaneously.     

Different methods of lexical access for words presented in the left and right visual hemifields

Right-handed adults were asked to identify by name bilaterally presented words and pronounceable nonwords. For words in the normal horizontal format, word length (number of letters) affected left visual hemifield (LVF) but not right visual hemifield (RVF) performance in Experiments 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. This finding was made for words of high and low frequency (Experiment 6) and imageability (Experiment 5). It also held across markedly different levels of overall performance (Experiments 1 and 2), and across different relative positionings of short and long words in the LVF and RVF (Experiment 3). Experiment 4 demonstrated that the variable affecting LVF performance is the number of letters in a word, not its phonological length. For pronounceable nonwords (Experiment 7) and words in unusual formats (Experiment 8), however, length affected both LVF and RVF performance. The characteristics identified for RVF performance in these experiments also hold for the normal reading system. In this (normal) system the absence of length effects for horizontally formatted words is generally taken to reflect the processes involved in lexical access. Length effects in the normal reading system are thought to arise when lexical access for unusually formatted words and for the pronunciation of nonwords requires the short-term storage of information at a graphemic level of analysis. The characteristics of LVF performance indicate that horizontally formatted words presented to the right cerebral hemisphere can only achieve lexical access by a method that requires the short-term storage of graphemic information. This qualitative difference in methods of lexical access applies regardless of whether the right hemisphere is seen as accessing words in the left hemisphere's lexicon or words in a lexicon of its own.     

Word length and orthographic neighborhood size effects in the left and right cerebral hemispheres

Previous studies have reported an interaction between visual field (VF) and word length such that word recognition is affected more by length in the left VF (LVF) than in the right VF (RVF). A reanalysis showed that the previously reported effects of length were confounded with orthographic neighborhood size (N). In three experiments we manipulated length and N in lateralized lexical decision tasks. Results showed that length and VF interacted even with N controlled (Experiment 1); that N affected responses to words in the LVF but not the RVF (Experiment 2); and that when length and N were combined, length only affected performance in the LVF for words with few neighbors.     

Words, hemispheres, and dissociable subsystems: the effects of exposure duration, case alternation, priming, and continuity of form on word recognition in the left and right visual fields

Three experiments explore aspects of the dissociable neural subsystems theory of hemispheric specialisation proposed by Marsolek and colleagues, and in particular a study by [Deason, R. G., & Marsolek, C. J. (2005). A critical boundary to the left-hemisphere advantage in word processing. Brain and Language, 92, 251–261]. Experiment 1A showed that shorter exposure durations for lower-case words (13 ms) are associated with reduced right visual field (RVF) advantages compared with longer exposure durations (144 ms). Experiment 1B compared report accuracy for lower case and mixed case words at the same exposure duration (144 ms). The RVF advantage was reduced for mixed case words due to case alternation having more of an adverse effect in the RVF than in the LVF. Experiment 2 tested a different prediction of dissociable neural subsystems theory. Four-letter words were presented in mixed case in the LVF or RVF for 100 ms. They were preceded at the same location by a prime which could be in the same word in the same alternation pattern (e.g., FlAg–FlAg), the same word in the opposite alternation pattern (e.g., fLaG–FlAg), or an unrelated letter string in the same or opposite case alternation pattern (WoPk–FlAg or wOpK–FlAg). Relative to performance in the letter string prime conditions, which did not differ significantly between the two visual fields, there was more of an effect of word primes in the RVF than in the LVF. Importantly, the benefit of a word prime was the same whether the prime was in the same alternation pattern or was in the opposition alternation pattern. We argue that these results run contrary to the predictions of dissociable neural subsystems theory and are more compatible with theories which propose that a left hemisphere word recognition system is responsible for identifying written words, whether they are presented in the LVF or the RVF, and that letters are processed to an abstract graphemic level of representation before being identified by that system.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Changes in same-different laterality patterns as a function of practice and stimulus quality

Accuracy and reaction time (RT) of judgments about sameness vs. difference of (a) names of two letters and (b) shapes of two nonverbal forms were examined for stimuli presented to the center, left (LVF), and right (RVF) visual fields. For same-name letter pairs during Experiment I, responses were more accurate and faster for LVF than for RVF trials on an initial 90-trial block, but this difference was reversed by a third 90-trial block. The RVF advantage for RT was maintained over Trial Blocks 4 and 5, given during a second session, but had disappeared on Trial Blocks 6 through 9 as RT reached the same asymptotic level for both visual fields. No LVF-RVF differences were obtained at any level of practice for different-name letter pairs or for any of the form pairs. Experiment II replicated the shift from LVF toward RVF advantage that occurred over the first three trial blocks of Experiment I and demonstrated that such a shift does not occur when the letters are perceptually degraded. The results were discussed in terms of differences in cerebral hemisphere specialization for visuospatial vs. abstract stages of letter processing and changes with practice in the relative difficulty of these stages.     

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”.     

Decision strategies and visual-field asymmetries in same-different judgments of word meaning

The accuracy with which observers judged whether two words belonged to the same semantic category was determined from a detection-theoretic analysis ofsame-different judgments. In Experiment 1, one word was presented centrally and the other word in either the left visual field (LVF) or the right visual field (RVF); in Experiment 2, both words were presented to either the LVF or the RVF. In order to obtain receiver-operating characteristics (ROCs) of performance, observers were asked to rate their confidence that the two words belonged to the same semantic category. Two models of the decision strategy were fitted to the obtained characteristics: a differencing model, in which the decision variable was the difference between the two observations; and an optimal model, in which each observation was judged in relation to a criterion. In both experiments, the optimal model provided a better fit than the differencing model to the obtained characteristics. Maximum-likelihood estimates of both the criterion-free parameter,d′, and the area under the operating characteristic,p(A), were greater for words presented in the RVF than for those presented in the LVF.