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.     

How brand names are special: brands,words, and hemispheres

Previous research has consistently shown differences between the processing of proper names and of common nouns, leading to the belief that proper names possess a special neuropsychological status. We investigate the category of brand names and suggest that brand names also have a special neuropsychological status, but one which is different from proper names. The findings suggest that the hemispheric lexical status of the brand names is mixed--they behave like words in some respects and like nonwords in others. Our study used familiar upper case brand names, common nouns, and two different types of nonwords ("weird" and "normal") differing in length, as stimuli in a lateralized lexical decision task (LDT). Common nouns, brand names, weird nonwords, and normal nonwords were recognized in that decreasing order of speed and accuracy. A right visual field (RVF) advantage was found for all four lexical types. Interestingly, brand names, similar to nonwords, were found to be less lateralized than common nouns, consistent with theories of category-specific lexical processing. Further, brand names were the only type of lexical items to show a capitalization effect: brand names were recognized faster when they were presented in upper case than in lower case. In addition, while string length affected the recognition of common nouns only in the left visual field (LVF) and the recognition of nonwords only in the RVF, brand names behaved like common nouns in exhibiting length effects only in the LVF.     

Length, formats, neighbours, hemispheres, and the processing of words presented laterally or at fixation

It has long been known that the number of letters in a word has more of an effect on recognition speed and accuracy in the left visual field (LVF) than in the right visual field (RVF) provided that the word is presented in a standard, horizontal format. After considering the basis of the length by visual field interaction two further differences between the visual fields/hemispheres are discussed: (a) the greater impact of format distortion (including case alternation) in the RVF than in the LVF and (b) the greater facilitation of lexical decision by orthographic neighbourhood size (N) in the LVF than in the RVF. In the context of split fovea accounts of word recognition, evidence is summarised which indicates that the processing of words presented at fixation is affected by the number of letters to the left of fixation but not by the number of letters to the right and by the number of orthographic neighbours activated by letters to the left of fixation but not by the number of orthographic neighbours activated by letters to the right of fixation. A model of word recognition is presented which incorporates the notion that the left hemisphere has sole access to a mode of word recognition that involves parallel access from letter forms to the visual input lexicon, is disrupted by format distortion, and does not employ top-down support of the letter level by the word level.     

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.     

The cortical representation of centrally presented words: A magnetic stimulation study

The right and left visual fields each project to the contralateral cerebral hemispheres. The current study aimed to investigate the extent of the functional overlap of the two hemifields along the vertical meridian. We applied repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the left and right occipital cortex to investigate whether the foveal representation of words is bilaterally represented or is split between the two hemispheres. Employing a lateralized lexical decision task, we first showed a double dissociation between the stimulated cortical site and performance; right visual field (RVF) but not left visual field (LVF) performance was impaired when the left visual cortex was stimulated, and LVF but not RVF performance was impairred when the right visual cortex was stimulated. Unilateral stimulation also significantly impaired lexical decision latencies to centrally presented words. These findings support the suggestion that foveal representation of words is split. We discuss future strategies for the use of TMS in further tests of the split representation account.     

Sentence and word outline shape as co-primes for target words presented to the two visual hemifields

A lexical decision experiment tested visual field stimulation of word targets after priming the central visual field by the target word outline shape and/or an incomplete sentence. In general, RT was shorter and accuracy better for target words presented to the RVF. Responses were quicker and more accurate to target words presented to either visual hemifield after priming by either a congruent incomplete sentence or a congruent word outline shape (WOS). However, the joint effect of WOS and an incomplete sentence as co-primes was different when the succeeding word target appeared in the RVF than when it appeared in the LVF. While a congruent WOS and incomplete sentence acting as co-primes reduced RT to LVF targets orthogonally. the two variables operated interactively as co-primes on target words presented to the RVF.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of upper vs. lower and right vs. left visual fields using lexical decision

A series of experiments using the lexical decision task was conducted in order to investigate the functional differences between the upper and lower visual fields (UVF, LoVF) in word recognition. Word-nonword discrimination was swifter and more accurate for word stimuli presented in the UVF. Changing the eccentricity did not affect the UVF advantage over the LoVF. UVF superiority over LoVF was found to be equivalent for both right and left visual hemifield (RVF, LVF). In general, presenting related word primes enhanced all visual field differences in a similar manner (UVF over LoVF and RVF over LVF). However, primes consisting of semantically constraining sentences enhanced the RVF advantage over the LVF, but did not affect the UVF and LoVF differentially. The argument is made that UVF superiority cannot be due to perceptual or attentional differences alone, but must also reflect top-down information flow.     

Hemisphere dynamics in lexical access: automatic and controlled priming

Hemisphere differences in lexical processing may be due to asymmetry in the organization of lexical information, in procedures used to access the lexicon, or both. Six lateralized lexical decision experiments employed various types of priming to distinguish among these possibilities. In three controlled (high probability) priming experiments, prime words could be used as lexical access clues. Larger priming was obtained for orthographically similar stimuli (BEAK-BEAR) when presented to the left visual field (LVF). Controlled priming based on phonological relatedness (JUICE-MOOSE) was equally effective in either visual field (VF). Semantic similarity (INCH-YARD) produced larger priming for right visual field (RVF) stimuli. These results suggest that the hemispheres may utilize different information to achieve lexical access. Spread of activation through the lexicon was measured in complementary automatic (low probability) priming experiments. Priming was restricted to LVF stimuli for orthographically similar words, while priming for phonologically related stimuli was only obtained in the RVF. Automatic semantic priming was present bilaterally, but was larger in the LVF. These results imply hemisphere differences in lexical organization, with orthographic and semantic relationships available to the right hemisphere, and phonological and semantic relations available to the left hemisphere. Support was obtained for hemisphere asymmetries in both lexical organization and directed lexical processing.     

Lateralization in the visual perception of Chinese characters and words

It has been reported that tachistoscopic perception of single Chinese characters is better with a left-visual-field (LVF) than with a right-visual-field (RVF) presentation and that of Chinese words consisting of characters is better with a RVF presentation (O. J. L. Tzeng, D. L. Hung, B. Cotton, & S.-Y. Wang, 1979, Nature (London), 382, 499-501). In this study, the nature of this character-word difference in lateralization was explored in a task in which stimuli were presented unilaterally to a visual field for recognition test. Four types of stimuli were used: Single character, single pseudo- or noncharacter, two-character word, and two-character pseudoword. Results show (a) no visual-field advantage for illegal characters and words, (b) a LVF-advantage effect for characters associated with a more prominent LVF than RVF character-superiority effect, (c) a RVF-advantage effect for words associated with a more prominent RVF than LVF word-superiority effect, and (d) these two visual-field effects for characters and words being not absolute, they occur only with a low rather than with a high recognition for their respective illegal counterparts. These results suggest that the character-word difference is due to a more efficient lexical interpretation of character stimuli in the right than in the left hemisphere and a more efficient lexical interpretation of word stimuli in the left than in the right hemisphere.     

Different modes of word recognition in the left and right visual fields

We confirm previous evidence indicating that word length has a substantial effect on word recognition in the LVF but a much weaker effect in both the RVF and fovea. The nature of encoding in the LVF is not altered when the words are vertically displayed (Experiment 2), and the effect cannot therefore be entirely due to scanning artefact or acuity gradients in peripheral vision. We provide evidence that links the asymmetrical influence of word length directly to hemispheric specialization: left-handers, who as a group are much less consistently lateralized than right-handers are also less affected by word length in the LVF on the average (Experiment 3). This occurs because the asymmetry for certain left-handers is either very weak or, in some cases, is the complete reverse of the asymmetry observed in right-handers. Finally, we demonstrate that the length x field interaction is observed in lexical decisions (Experiment 4) which do not entail pronunciation of written words. There is some indication that concrete, high-imageable words produce a smaller effect of length in the LVF than abstract, low-imageable words, and we discuss this outcome in relation to the proposal that the right hemisphere can sometimes extract a lexical code from letter information. The concept of distinct modes of word recognition in the LVF and RVF clarifies a number of issues in laterality research, and suggests a new approach to evaluating group differences in half-field performance.     

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.     

Modes of word recognition in the left and right cerebral hemispheres

Four experiments are reported examining the effects of word length on recognition performance in the left and right visual hemifields (LVF, RVF). In Experiments 1 and 2 length affected lexical decision latencies to words presented in the LVF but not to words presented in the RVF. This result was found for both concrete and abstract nouns. Changing from a normal horizontal format to the use of unconventionally "stepped" words, however, produced length effects for words in both visual hemifields (Experiment 3). The Length x VHF interaction was found once again in Experiment 4 where subjects classified words as either concrete or abstract. A model proposing two modes of visual processing of letter strings is presented to account for these findings. Mode A operates independent of string length and is seen only in left hemisphere analysis of familiar words. Mode B is length dependent: it is the only mode possessed by the right hemisphere but is displayed by the left hemisphere to nonwords and to words in abnormal formats.     

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.     

Both sides get the point: Hemispheric sensitivities to sentential constraint

Behavioral studies have consistently reported striking differences in the impact of sentence-level information on the processing of words presented in the right (RVF) versus the left (LVF) visual field, with context effects apparent only for RVF items. The consistent lack of such effects in the LVF has been taken to mean that right hemisphere language comprehension is largely insensitive to message-level meaning. We used the functional specificity afforded by event-related potential measures to assess this claim. Target words completing strongly and weakly constraining sentence contexts, in which constraint arose at the sentence level rather than from lexical associations, were presented laterally in the LVF or RVF. Increased constraint significantly reduced N400 amplitudes with presentation in both VFs, with no differences in the timing or amplitude of these effects. These results are inconsistent with the view that the VF asymmetries found in behavioral measures reflect differential hemispheric capacities at the level of semantic analysis and integration, although VF-based differences on earlier components (P2) suggest asymmetries in the impact of sentential context on perceptual aspects of word processing in the two hemispheres.     

The relationship between reading ability and lateralized lexical decision

Although lexical decision remains one of the most extensively studied cognitive tasks, very little is known about its relationship to broader linguistic performance such as reading ability. In a correlational study, several aspects of lateralized lexical decision performance were related to vocabulary and reading comprehension measures, as assessed using the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. This lateralized lexical decision task has been previously shown to demonstrate (1) independent contributions from both hemispheres, as well as (2) interhemispheric interactions during word recognition. Lexical decision performance showed strong relationships with both reading measures. Specifically, vocabulary performance correlated significantly with left visual field (LVF) word accuracy and LVF non-word latency, both measures of right hemisphere performance. There were also significant, though somewhat weaker, correlations between reading comprehension and RVF non-word latency. Lexicality priming, a measure of interhemispheric communication during lexical decision, was also correlated with reading comprehension. These results suggest that hemispheric interaction during word recognition is common, and that lexical processing contribution from the right hemisphere, something commonly taken as minor and inconsequential, can lead to significant performance benefits and to individual differences in reading.     

Is Happy Facial Expression Identified by the Left or Right Hemisphere？

1IntroductionCorrectly identifying other people′s facial ex-pressions of emotions is important to human socialinteraction in all societies.Many studies suggestthat the identification of facial expressions in par-ticular and perceptual processing of emotional infor-mation is carried out mainly by the right hemi-sphere of the brain[1￣7].Damage to the righthemisphere generally produces more significant im-pairment in recognition of all facial expressions ofemotion than damage to the left hemisp…     

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

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

Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: effects of orthographic neighborhood size

The split fovea theory proposes that visual word recognition of centrally presented words is mediated by the splitting of the foveal image, with letters to the left of fixation being projected to the right hemisphere (RH) and letters to the right of fixation being projected to the left hemisphere (LH). Two lexical decision experiments aimed to elucidate word recognition processes under the split fovea theory are described. The first experiment showed that when words were presented centrally, such that the initial letters were in the left visual field (LVF/RH), there were effects of orthographic neighborhood, i.e., there were faster responses to words with high rather than low orthographic neighborhoods for the initial letters ('lead neighbors'). This effect was limited to lead-neighbors but not end-neighbors (orthographic neighbors sharing the same final letters). When the same words were fully presented in the LVF/RH or right visual field (RVF/LH, Experiment 2), there was no effect of orthographic neighborhood size. We argue that the lack of an effect in Experiment 2 was due to exposure to all of the letters of the words, the words being matched for overall orthographic neighborhood count and the sub-parts no longer having a unique effect. We concluded that the orthographic activation found in Experiment 1 occurred because the initial letters of centrally presented words were projected to the RH. The results support the split fovea theory, where the RH has primacy in representing lead neighbors of a written word.