Laterality effects in visual information processing: Hemispheric specialisation or the orienting of attention?

The notion that visual laterality patterns may be attributable to attentional allocation rather than hemispheric specialisation was examined in three experiments. In Experiment I, high verbal ability subjects were found to be less lateralised on a letter name match task than low verbals. In Experiment II, stimulus probability was shown to affect laterality patterns for name but not for physical matches. Again, low verbals were affected more than highs. Experiment III produced results identical to those of Experiment II although, in the latter experiment, visual fields were defined vertically rather than horizontally from the midline. Together, these results support the following generalisations: (1) visual asymmetries have their locus in a post-perceptual information processing stage; (2) visual asymmetries may be altered by manipulating stimulus probability; (3) verbal ability differences in laterality may not reflect neuroanatomical differences but merely cognitive capacity and (4) it may be unnecessary to invoke differential hemispheric specialisation in order to account for visual lateral asymmetries.     

Explanation and verbalization in a computer-assisted search task

Three experiments examine the effects of two different forms of explanation on assisted performance on a complex search task. The task involves determining which of a set of factories is responsible for polluting a river by testing the river for the presence or absence of various pollutants. All subjects receive computer suggestions as to which pollutants they should test for. In addition, some subjects receive an explanation of the principle according to which the advice program works. Two forms of explanation are compared. Experiment 1 shows that subjects who are allowed to ask “why” each computer recommendation is made perform significantly better than those who are provided with a block text of explanation at the start of each trial. Experiment 2 shows that the latter type of explanation is not completely ineffective, however. Subjects who are required to verbalize following the single explanation perform significantly better than do subjects who are required to verbalize but who have not received any form of explanation. Finally, Experiment 3 shows that subjects who receive the multiple “why” explanations or the explanation/verbalization combination maintain a superior performance level on subsequent unaided trials.