Hemispheric patterns in visual search

A visual search paradigm was employed to examine hemispheric serial and parallel processing. Stimulus arrays containing 4, 9, or 16 elements were tachistoscopically presented to the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH) or left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH). Subjects judged whether all of the elements within an array were physically the same (all X's) or whether one (O) was different from the rest. Left hemisphere presentations were processed more quickly and accurately than LVF-RH presentations for all stimulus conditions. As the number of array elements increased, more errors and longer response times were obtained for different stimulus items whereas fewer errors and somewhat shorter response times were obtained for same stimulus items. These and previous results suggest that the left hemisphere obtains an advantage for visual search because of that hemisphere's superiority for fine-grained feature analysis rather than because of a fundamental hemispheric serial/parallel processing dichotomy.     

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 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 asymmetries for complex visual patterns

Three tachistoscopic studies examined the laterality of spatial-form perception in normal adults using randomly generated eight-point and 12-point patterns (Vanderplas & Garvin, 1959) as the lateralized stimuli. In the first study of recognition accuracy, 36 subjects were tested in a partial replication of Fontenot. No laterality effects were found, and over-all recognition was better for the more complex 12-point patterns. In a second similar study with 20 subjects, the lateralized stimulus was followed by a central masking pattern. A left-hemisphere superiority for recognition and better over-all recognition for more complex patterns was obtained. These data do not support Fontenot's report of right-hemisphere superiority in complex visuospatial processing. Given these diverse findings, a reaction time study using mental rotation was conducted using the same patterns to determine whether latency would reflect accuracy of recognition. Twenty-six subjects judged whether a rotated lateralized test pattern was the same or different from a central target pattern. Measures of both latency and accuracy were separately assessed. No main effect of visual field was obtained on either measure. These studies suggest that the nature of hemispheric involvement in spatial form perception is far from resolved.     

Hemispheric asymmetries in visual pattern processing in infancy

A right hemisphere advantage was observed in a previous study of 4- to 9-month old infants presented with a face discrimination task (de Schonen & Mathivet, 1990). The present study was designed to investigate pattern processing by the two hemispheres and the interhemispheric communication of this processing. Infants aged 4 to 9 months were tested with divided visual field presentations in one or two discrimination tasks. Under both task conditions, the infants had to discriminate between two patterns in which only two local components differed. Under one condition the components of the patterns were arranged so as to produce a face-like pattern. Under the other condition the same components were arranged into arbitrary patterns that were not "good form" patterns. No performance asymmetry was observed with the arbitrary patterns; whereas, a right hemisphere (RH) disadvantage was observed with the face-like patterns compared with both the RH performances on the arbitary patterns and the left hemisphere (LH) performances on the face-like patterns. These results show that the RH advantage for individual face recognition is not due to a general immaturity or inability of the LH in pattern processing at this period of development, nor to a more specific inability in a local mode of pattern processing. On the other hand, the RH does not completely lack local processing capacity, but is at a disadvantage when this local mode of processing has to be used with face-like (or good form) patterns. The interhemispheric communication of visual discrimination learning was tested by measuring learning transfer between the visual fields. Contrary to de Schonen and Bry's study (1987) on faceness recognition, no data in favor of interhemispheric communication were recorded in the present study.     

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.     

Hemispheric differences for orthographic and phonological processing

The role of hemispheric differences for the encoding of words was assessed by requiring subjects to match tachistoscopically presented word pairs on the basis of their rhyming or visual similarity. The interference between a word pair's orthography and phonology produced matching errors which were differentially affected by the visual field/hemisphere of projection and sex of subject. In general, right visual field/left hemisphere presentations yielded fewer errors when word pairs shared similar phonology under rhyme matching and similar orthography under visual matching. Left visual field/right hemisphere presentations yielded fewer errors when word pairs were phonologically dissimilar under rhyme matching and orthographically dissimilar under visual matching. Males made more errors and demonstrated substantially stronger hemispheric effects than females. These patterns suggested visual field/hemispheric differences for orthographic and phonological encoding occurred during the initial stages of word processing and were more pronounced for male compared to female subjects.     

Hemispheric differences in visual search of simple line arrays

Summary The effects of perceptual organization on hemispheric visual-information processing were assessed with stimulus arrays composed of short lines arranged in columns. A visual-search task was employed in which subjects judged whether all the lines were vertical (same) or whether a single horizontal line was present (different). Stimulus-display organization was manipulated in two experiments by variation of line density, linear organization, and array size. In general, left-visual-field/right-hemisphere presentations demonstrated more rapid and accurate responses when the display was perceived as a whole. Right-visual-field/left-hemisphere superiorities were observed when the display organization coerced assessment of individual array elements because the physical qualities of the stimulus did not effect a gestalt whole. Response times increased somewhat with increases in array size, although these effects interacted with other stimulus variables. Error rates tended to follow the reaction-time patterns. The results suggest that laterality differences in visual search are governed by stimulus properties which contribute to, or inhibit, the perception of a display as a gestalt. The implications of these findings for theoretical interpretations of hemispheric specialization are discussed.     

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     

Categorization versus distance: Hemispheric differences for processing spatial information

It has been hypothesized that the brain computes two different kinds of spatial-relation representations: one used to assign a spatial relation to a category and the other used to specify metric distance with precision. The present visual half-field experiment offers support for this distinction by showing that the left and right cerebral hemispheres make more effective use of the categorization and metric distance representations, respectively. Furthermore, the inclusion of a bilateral stimulus presentation condition permits the computation of a reversed association that offers additional support for the distinction between two types of spatial-relation representation.     

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 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 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 processing differences revealed by differential conditioning and reaction time performance.

Two different experimental procedures were used to examine (a) information-processing differences between two groups of subjects (Cs versus Vs) identified by the form of their conditioned eyeblinks; (b) information-processing differences between the right and left cerebral hemispheres; and (c) parallels between hypothesized C-V differences and right-left hemisphere differences. In the first experiment, the evocative command words BLINK and DON'T BLINK served as positive and negative conditioned stimuli. It was found that Vs gave more conditioned eyeblinks than Cs and that differential eyelid conditioning of Vs more than Cs was influenced by the semantic content of the stimuli. More importantly, the conditioning performance of Cs was more influenced by the semantic attributes of the stimuli when they were presented directly to the right visual field (left hemisphere) than when they were presented directly to the left visual field (right hemisphere). In contrast, the conditioning performance of Vs was equally influenced by the semantic attributes regardless of which hemisphere received direct stimulation. A second experiment was designed to determine whether such hemisphere-of-presentation differences for Cs versus Vs could also be obtained in a very different task. Subjects classified as Cs or Vs during a differential eyelid conditioning task then performed two same-different reaction time (RT) tasks that required discrimination of complex polygons in one case and the names of letters in another. On each RT trial both stimuli of a pair appeared briefly either in the center, left, or right visual field. For both Cs and Vs RTs to complex polygon pairs averaged 20 msec faster on left visual field trials than on right visual field trials, consistent with current hypotheses about right-hemisphere specialization for visuospatial processing. In contrast, the results for letter pairs generally confirmed the C-V differences found in Experiment 1. That is, the right visual field (left-hemisphere) advantage for these verbal stimuli was once again larger for Cs than for Vs. The present results suggest that the two groups of subjects (Cs versus Vs) differ qualitatively in the modes of information processing that they typically employ. The results also suggest that these different modes of processing are related to aspects of cerebral hemisphere organization and that even right-handed individuals may differ from each other in the extent to which each cerebral hemisphere is mobilized for a given experimental task. Such individual differences must be incorporated into both models of classical eyelid conditioning and models of cerebral hemisphere specialization.     

Hemispheric asymmetries in visual word-form processing: progress, conflict, and evaluating theories

The ubiquitous left-hemisphere advantage in visual word processing can be accounted for in different ways. Competing theories have been tested recently using cAsE-aLtErNaTiNg words to investigate boundary conditions for the typical effect. We briefly summarize this research and examine the disagreements and commonalities across the theoretical perspectives. This work may provide a good example why a multi-level, multi-method, and multi-paradigm approach holds the greatest promise for rapid theoretical progress.     

Age-related differences in the processing of redundant visual dimensions

Age differences in the redundant-signals effect and coactivation of visual dimensions were investigated in 2 experiments. In Experiment 1 the task required the conjoining of dimensions, whereas in Experiment 2 the spatial separation of dimensions was manipulated. Although coactivation was evident for both age groups when the redundant dimensions occurred at the same location, older adults showed more evidence for coactivation, perhaps because of compensation for declines in perceptual processing. When the redundant dimensions were separated, neither age group showed evidence for coactivation. These findings indicate that the coactive processing of redundant visual dimensions is spared in healthy older adults and that for both groups, attention must be focused on both dimensions for coactivation to occur.     

Developmental differences in visual processing: strategy versus structure

The present study was an examination of two contrasting explanations for the finding that young children tend to classify objects according to similarity relations whereas adults emphasize dimensional structure. Subjects from three different age groups were given tasks that tapped different aspects of the visual process: Feature search, Conjunction search, and Restricted Classification tasks. In addition, three different stimulus objects (a highly separable, a highly integral, and an intermediate dimensional combination) were studied to explore the contribution of stimulus structure in dictating the nature of the processing mode. The results provided evidence against the view that children perceive objects according to a more primitive holistic structure. Rather, the results can be taken with past research to suggest that less efficient visual processing may lead the younger subjects to adopt a classification strategy that emphasizes similarity relations. In addition, the current research supported Garner's (1974, The processing of information and structure, Potomac, MD: Erlbaum) suggestion that the nature of the processing mode is stimulus-driven.     

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.