Hemispheric differences in indexical specificity effects in spoken word recognition

Variability in talker identity, one type of indexical variation, has demonstrable effects on the speed and accuracy of spoken word recognition. Furthermore, neuropsychological evidence suggests that indexical and linguistic information may be represented and processed differently in the 2 cerebral hemispheres, and is consistent with findings from the visual domain. For example, in visual word recognition, changes in font affect processing differently depending on which hemisphere initially processes the input. The present study examined whether hemispheric differences exist in spoken language as well. In 4 long-term repetition-priming experiments, the authors examined responses to stimuli that were primed by stimuli that matched or mismatched in talker identity. The results demonstrate that indexical variability can affect participants' perception of spoken words differently in the 2 hemispheres.     

Hemispheric asymmetries in the activation and monitoring of memory errors

Previous research on the lateralization of memory errors suggests that the right hemisphere's tendency to produce more memory errors than the left hemisphere reflects hemispheric differences in semantic activation. However, all prior research that has examined the lateralization of memory errors has used self-paced recognition judgments. Because activation occurs early in memory retrieval, with more time to make a decision, other memory processes, like strategic monitoring processes, may affect memory errors. By manipulating the time subjects were given to make memory decisions, this study separated the influence of automatic memory processes (activation) from strategic memory processes (monitoring) on the production of false memories. The results indicated that when retrieval was fast, the right hemisphere produced more memory errors than the left hemisphere. However, when retrieval was slow, the left hemisphere's error-proneness increased compared to the fast retrieval condition, while the right hemisphere's error-proneness remained the same. These results suggest that the right hemisphere's errors are largely due to activation, while the left hemisphere's errors are influenced by both activation and monitoring.     

Hemispheric differences in temporal resolution

A review of the relevant clinical and experimental literature gives the conclusion that the cerebral hemispheres differ in temporal resolution of input, with the language-dominant hemisphere showing finer acuity. This conclusion is supported by evidence from performance of patients with unilateral brain damage on tests of temporal resolution, performance of developmental dyslexics on similar tasks, and left-right sensory field differences in temporal acuity in normal human subjects. While it is unlikely that a hemispheric difference in temporal resolution is sufficient to give a complete account of lateralized functions, such attempts to show more primitive physiological differences between the hemispheres are more likely to be fruitful than attempts which differentiate the hemispheres in terms of higher-order psychological functions.     

Hemispheric differences in case processing

Morphosyntactic capacities of normal brain hemispheres were compared in lexical decision studies involving centrally and laterally presented Serbo-Croatian nouns in different cases. Cases are distinguished by different suffixes and syntactic roles. Experiment 1 confirmed and extended previous findings of the nominative superiority effect: words in the nominative case were processed faster and more accurately than words in other three cases, and nonwords in the nominative case led to more false positive reactions than nonwords in other cases. In Experiment 2 this effect was replicated for right visual field stimuli: nominatives had faster reaction times and smaller error rates than accusatives, and the reversed pattern was found for nonwords. For left visual field stimuli, only the word error analysis found the nominative superior, while the other three analyses (word reaction times, nonword reaction times, and nonword error rates) showed no significant case effect. Word familiarity had an equally strong effect in both hemispheres. The results suggest that centrally presented stimuli are processed by the left hemisphere, that laterally presented stimuli are processed by the initially receiving hemisphere, and that the right hemisphere has a frequency-sensitive lexicon. Reduced right-hemisphere sensitivity for case differences may be due to different lexicon structure or the absence of appropriate morphological or syntactic mechanisms.     

Hemispheric differences in picture-word interference

In a picture-word version of the Stroop task, 30 right-handed subjects were tested under each of six conditions in which a picture alone or a picture plus a word were presented to the left, the right, or both hemispheres. In two additional conditions the picture was presented to the right hemisphere and the word was simultaneously presented to the left hemisphere, or vice versa. For all conditions, subjects were instructed to name the picture only, as rapidly as possible. Picture naming times were significantly slower for the conditions in which the pictures were accompanied by words than in the respective picture alone conditions. Moreover, simultaneous presentation of a picture and a word to both hemispheres resulted in greater interference (slower picture naming times) than did the simultaneous presentation of the picture and the word to either the left hemisphere alone or the right hemisphere alone. The latter two conditions, in turn, resulted in significantly more interference than did the simultaneous presentation of the picture to one hemisphere and the word to the other hemisphere. This pattern of results suggests that the Stroop effect obtained under normal circumstances is in large part a function of the interference caused by the simultaneous processing of items in the same hemisphere. In contrast to hemispheric differences reported for the color-word Stroop task, the effect of presenting a picture and word simultaneously to the right hemisphere did not differ reliably from that of presenting a picture and word to the left hemisphere. The failure to replicate this aspect of the color-word Stroop is attributed to differences in the abilities of the two hemispheres to process the respective target items (the color or the picture) of the two tasks.     

Hemispheric differences in semantic-relatedness judgments

Subjects judged the semantic relatedness of word pairs presented to the left or right visual field. The word pairs were presented one below the other. On critical trials, the words' referents had a typical spatial relation, with one referent oriented above the other (e.g. ATTIC/BASEMENT). The spatial relation of the words either matched or mismatched the spatial relation of their referents. When presented to the left hemisphere, the match or mismatch did not have an effect. However, there was a reliable mismatch effect for pairs presented to the right hemisphere. The results are interpreted in the context of perceptual theories of mental representation.     

Hemispheric differences in stimulus identification

Subjects were presented with either verbal (letters) or nonverbal (outline forms) stimuli to their left or right cerebral hemispheres. Verbal items presented with a lateral masking stimulus were identified more quickly and accurately when presented to the right hemisphere rather than to the left. When the letters were presented without a masking stimulus, weak hemispheric effects were obtained. Nonverbal forms demonstrated faster reaction time and fewer errors for right-hemisphere presentations under both masked and unmasked conditions. Retinal locus of the display item was also varied and produced faster responding with fewer errors when the stimulus was presented foveally rather than peripherally under all display conditions. These effects were attributed to the use of a manual response procedure that effectively reduced the ability of subjects to employ names for the stimulus objects.     

Hemispheric differences in object identification

Although the right hemisphere is thought to be preferentially involved in visuospatial processing, the specialization of the two hemispheres with respect to object identification is unclear. The present study investigated the effects of hemifield presentation on object and word identification by presenting objects (Experiment 1) and words (Experiment 2) in a rapid visual stream of distracters. In Experiment 1, object images presented in the left visual field (i.e., to the right hemisphere) were identified with shorter display times. In addition, the left visual field advantage was greater for inverted objects. In Experiment 2, words presented in the right visual field (i.e., to the left hemisphere) under similar conditions were identified with shorter display times. These results support the idea that the right hemisphere is specialized with regard to object identification.     

Hemispheric sensitivity differences in the perception of colour

Signal detection analysis was performed on data obtained from discrimination tasks using lateralized coloured stimuli. It was found that there was a right hemisphere superiority in discriminability to both hue and saturation.     

Hemispheric differences in the voluntary inhibition of movement

Twenty normal, twenty left-, and fifteen right-brain injured subjects, all right-handed, were assigned a sequence of voluntary inhibition of 23 movements. The inhibition lapse was recorded. Statistical analyses indicated a high performance in the normal and a deficient performance in left-brain injured subjects, no influence of the neurological symptoms on groups' achievement, a handicap in the subjects affected by a frontal lesion in the right brain, a hierarchical clustering of items varying according to the groups, and an organ-group interaction.     

Hemispheric specialization in reading and word recognition

Three experiments dealing with hemispheric specialization are presented. In Experiment 1, words and/or faces were presented tachistoscopically to the left or right of fixation. Words were more accurately identified in the right visual field and faces were more accurately identified in the left visual field. A forced choice error analysis for words indicated that errors made for word stimuli were most frequently visually similar words and this effect was particularly pronounced in the left visual field. Two additional experiments supported this finding. On the basis of the results, it was argued that word identification is a multistage process, with visual feature analysis carried out by the right hemisphere and identification and naming by the left hemisphere. In addition, Kinsbourne's attentional model of brain function was rejected in favor of an anatomical model which suggests that simultaneous processing of verbal and nonverbal information does not constrict the attention of either hemisphere.     

Hemispheric visual processing in face recognition

Two experiments tested how facial details are used in recognizing face drawings presented to either the left or right visual field (VF). Subjects used inner and outer features about equally in both the left and right VFs. The major finding was a very strong tendency to recognize the upper facial features more accurately than the lower facial features. The top-to-bottom recognition difference occurred in both VFs, in contrast to an earlier study by J. Sergent (1982, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 1-14). Methodological differences between the present experiments and Sergent's studies were discussed. It was concluded that both the left and right hemispheres recognize novel faces using top-to-bottom serial processing.     

Hemispheric asymmetry in cross-race face recognition

This study examines two phenomena related to face perception, both of which depend on experience and holistic processing: perceivers process faces more efficiently in the right hemisphere of the brain (a hemispheric asymmetry), and they typically show greater recognition accuracy for members of their racial ingroup (a cross-race recognition deficit). The current study tests the possibility that these two effects are related. If asymmetry depends on experience, it should be particularly evident with (more familiar) ingroup faces; if cross-race recognition relies on holistic processing, it should be particularly evident for faces presented to the right hemisphere. Black and White participants viewed Black and White faces presented to either the left or right visual field. As predicted, participants showed a more pronounced asymmetry for ingroup (rather than outgroup) faces, and cross-race recognition deficits were more pronounced for stimuli presented to the left (rather than the right) visual field.     

Hemispheric differences in grammatical class.

Although a number of studies have examined lexical asymmetries in hemispheric processing, few have systematically investigated differences between nouns and verbs. Lateralization effects of grammatical class were examined by presenting nouns and verbs of both high and low frequency to either the right or left visual field. Results from both a noun/verb categorization and a lexical decision task revealed a significant visual field by grammatical class interaction. Further analyses revealed that verbs were processed faster in the left compared to the right hemisphere, while there was no hemispheric advantage for the processing of nouns. The present study provides new evidence for the role of grammatical class in lexical processing.     

Hemispheric differences in stop task performance

This study examined hemispheric specialization for stop task performance. It was found that inhibitory performance was better for stop signals presented in the right visual field. This result provided support for the hypothesis that, during stop task performance, subjects call upon the left-lateralized neural system that is involved in active attention. It was suggested that a stop task requires such a mode of attention because subjects maintain a tonic readiness for inhibitory action while being engaged in the stop task's go routine. Subjects are continuously alert for possible stop signals while discriminating between go stimuli. The stop task may be considered a typical activation task.     

Hemispheric differences in processing visual patterns

The dichotomies verbal/visuospatial, serial/parallel and analytic/holistic are reviewed with respect to differences in hemispheric processing. A number of experimental parameters may be varied in such tasks, and together with certain frequently-occurring weaknesses of experimental design may account for the often discrepant results hitherto reported. The above factors are systematically reviewed, and three further experiments are reported which attempt to fill in the missing designs. Further evidence is given in support of the hypothesis that right-hemisphere superiority is most apparent in processes leading to identity matching. It is quantitative rather than qualitative, and may depend upon operations on the entire gestalt, such as holistic matching, mental rotation, reflection, distortion, etc., rather than, e.g., simultaneous (parallel) processing of discretely analysed or isolated features or elements. On the other hand left-hemisphere involvement in visuospatial processing is thought to reflect analysis of the configuration into its separable components; such processing may be either serial or parallel, and may frequently lead to a judgement different.     

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.     

Hemispheric differences in tactile and visual recognition of braille-like stimulus patterns with static and dynamic modes of inspection

Summary Braille-like patterns were presented unilaterally to both tactual and visual modalities. The subject's task was to identify the location of three dots in a 2 × 3 six-dot pattern. Specifically, tactual versus visual presentation, dynamic versus static presentation of tactual stimuli, learning, and gender were examined in relation to cerebral hemisheric differences. Data were analyzed in terms of both the number of individual stimulus dots and the number of complete three-dot patterns correctly identified with regard to their spatial location. Although no reliable laterality differences were obtained with the tactual-static condition, owing to a significant interaction between learning and side of stimulus presentation, dot positions were reported reliably more accurately when presented in a dynamic fashion, i. e., scanned by the subject, to the right hand. For the visual modality, both correct reports of individual dot positions as well as correct reports of the entire patterns were reliably more accurate for stimulus presentations to the right visual field. Increased familiarity with the task, i. e., learning accross trials, generally increased report accuracy, particularly for static presentations to the left hand. The effect of gender was negligible. The results are dicussed in terms of their theoretical implications for differential cerebral hemispheric specializations in terms of differential processing strategies.The research reported here was supported by a Grant (A8621) from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to the second author. Offprint requests should be sent to Eugene C. Lechelt, Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E9     

Hemispheric asymmetries in the time course of recognition memory

Hemispheric specialization has been studied extensively within subfields ranging from perception to language comprehension. However, the study of asymmetries for basic memory functions—an area that holds promise for bridging these low- and high-level cognitive domains—has been sporadic at best. We examined each hemisphere’s tendency to retain verbal information over time, using a continuous recognition memory task with lateralized study items and central test probes. We found that the ubiquitous advantage of the left hemisphere for the processing and retention of verbal information is attenuated and perhaps even reversed over long retention intervals. This result is consistent with theories that propose differences in the degree to which the hemispheres maintain veridical versus semantically transformed representations of the input they receive.     

Hemispheric differences in processing emotions and faces.

Visual field differences for the recognition of emotional expression were investigated using a tachistoscopic procedure. Cartoon line drawings of five adult male characters, each with five emotional expressions ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative, were used as stimuli. Single stimuli were presented unilaterally for 85 msec. Subjects (N = 20) were asked to compare this target face to a subsequent centrally presented face and to decide whether the emotional expressions of the two faces, or the character represented by the two faces, were the same or different. Significant left visual field (LVF) superiorities for both character and emotional expression recognition were found. Subsequent analyses demonstrated the independence of these effects. The LVF superiority for emotional judgments was related to the degree of affective expression, but that for character recognition was not. The results of this experiment are consistent with experimental and clinical literature which has indicated a right hemispheric superiority for face recognition and for processing emotional stimuli. The asymmetry for emotion recognition is interpreted as being an expression of the right hemisphere's synthetic and integrative characteristics, its holistic nature, and its use of imagic associations.