In Your Right Mind: Right Hemisphere Contributions to Language Processing and Production

The verbal/nonverbal account of left and right hemisphere functionality is the prevailing dichotomy describing the cerebral lateralization of function. Yet the fact that the left hemisphere is the superior language processor does not necessarily imply that the right hemisphere is completely lacking linguistic ability. This paper reviews the growing body of research demonstrating that, far from being nonverbal, the right hemisphere has significant language processing strength. From prosodic and paralinguistic aspects of speech production, reception, and interpretation, to prelexical, lexical and postlexical components of visual word recognition; strong involvement of the right hemisphere is implicated. The evidence reviewed challenges the notion that language is solely a function of the “verbal” left hemisphere, indicating that the right cerebral hemisphere makes significant and meaningful contributions to normal language processing as well.     

Variation among developmental dyslexics: evidence from a printed-word-learning task

A word-learning task was used to investigate variation among developmental dyslexics classified as phonological and surface dyslexics. Dyslexic children and chronological age (CA)- and reading level (RL)-matched normal readers were taught to pronounce novel nonsense words such as veep. Words were assigned either a regular (e.g., "veep") or an irregular (e.g., "vip") pronunciation. Phonological dyslexics learned both regular and exception words more slowly than the normal readers and, unlike the other groups, did not show a regular-word advantage. Surface dyslexics also learned regular and exception words more slowly than the CA group, consistent with a specific problem in mastering arbitrary item-specific pronunciations, but their performance resembled that of the RL group. The results parallel earlier findings from Manis, Seidenberg, Doi, McBride-Chang, & Petersen [Cognition 58 (1996) 157-195] indicating that surface dyslexics and phonological dyslexics have a different profile of reading deficits, with surface dyslexics resembling younger normal readers and phonological dyslexics showing a specific phonological deficit. Models of reading and reading disability need to account for the heterogeneity in reading processes among dyslexic children.     

Repetition priming within and between the two cerebral hemispheres

Two experiments explored repetition priming benefits in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. In both experiments, a lateralized lexical decision task was employed using repeated target stimuli. In the first experiment, all targets were repeated in the same visual field, and in the second experiment the visual field of presentation was switched following repetition. Both experiments demonstrated hemispheric specialization for the task (a RVF advantage for word identification) and hemispheric interaction for word processing (lexicality priming from contralateral distracters). In the first experiment, words were identified more quickly and accurately following repetition, with repetition facilitating faster but fewer correct responses for non-words. Complex interactions between visual field of first and second presentation in the second experiment indicate asymmetric interhemispheric repetition priming effects. These results provide a broad picture of hemispheric asymmetries in word processing and of complex interaction between the hemispheres during word recognition.     

The emergence of words: attentional learning in form and meaning

Children improve at word learning during the 2nd year of life—sometimes dramatically. This fact has suggested a change in mechanism, from associative learning to a more referential form of learning. This article presents an associative exemplar-based model that accounts for the improvement without a change in mechanism. It provides a unified account of children's growing abilities to (a) learn a new word given only 1 or a few training trials ("fast mapping"); (b) acquire words that differ only slightly in phonological form; (c) generalize word meanings preferentially along particular dimensions, such as object shape (the "shape bias"); and (d) learn 2nd labels for already-named objects, despite a persisting resistance to doing so ("mutual exclusivity"). The model explains these improvements in terms of increased attention to relevant aspects of form and meaning, which reduces memory interference. The interaction of associations and reference in word learning is discussed.     

Use of phonetic specificity during the acquisition of new words: differences between consonants and vowels

The present study explores the issue of the use of phonetic specificity in the process of learning new words at 20 months of age. The procedure used follows Nazzi and Gopnik [Nazzi, T., & Gopnik, A. (2001). Linguistic and cognitive abilities in infancy: When does language become a tool for categorization? Cognition, 80, B11-B20]. Infants were first presented with triads of perceptually dissimilar objects, which were given made-up names, two of the objects receiving the same name. Then, word learning was evaluated through object selection/categorization. Tests involved phonetically different words (e.g. [pize] vs. [mora], Experiment 1), words differing minimally on their onset consonant (e.g. [pize] vs. [tize], Experiment 2a), and conditions which had never been tested before: non-initial consonantal contrasts (e.g. [pide] vs. [pige], Experiment 2b), and vocalic contrasts (e.g. [pize] vs. [pyze]; [pize] vs. [paze]; [pize] vs. [pizu], Experiments 3a-c). Results differed across conditions: words could be easily learnt in the phonetically different condition, and were learnt, though to a lesser degree, in both the initial and non-initial minimal consonant contrast; however, infants' global performance on all three vocalic contrasts was at chance level. The present results shed new light regarding the specificity of early words, and raise the possibility of different contributions for vowels and consonants in early word learning.     

Auditory repetition priming is impaired in pure alexic patients

Alexia without agraphia, or "pure" alexia, is an acquired impairment in reading that leaves writing skills intact. Repetition priming for visually presented words is diminished in pure alexia. However, it is not possible to verify whether this priming deficit is modality-specific or modality independent because reading abilities are compromised. Hence, auditory repetition priming was assessed with lexical decision and word stem completion tasks in pure alexic patients with lesions in left inferior temporal-occipital cortex and the splenium. Perceptually based, modality-specific priming models predict intact auditory priming, since auditory association cortex is spared in the patients. Alternatively, modality-independent models, which suggest that priming reflects the temporary modification of an amodal system, might predict impairments. Baseline performance was matched in the patients and controls, although lexical decision priming measures showed an interaction between group and repetition lag. The patients showed intact immediate priming but significantly less priming than controls at longer delays. Furthermore, word stem completion priming was abolished in the patients. One explanation for the deficit is that left inferior temporal-occipital cortex supports amodal aspects of priming, as suggested by recent neuroimaging results. Another possibility is that long-term auditory priming relies on covert orthographic representations which were unavailable in the patients. The results provide support for interactive models of word identification.     

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.     

Perception of words and non-words in the upper and lower visual fields

The findings of previous investigations into word perception in the upper and the lower visual field (VF) are variable and may have incurred non-perceptual biases caused by the asymmetric distribution of information within a word, an advantage for saccadic eye-movements to targets in the upper VF and the possibility that stimuli were not projected to the correct retinal locations. The present study used the Reicher-Wheeler task and an eye-tracker to show that, using stringent methodology, a right over left VF advantage is observed for word recognition, but that no differences were found between the upper and the lower VF for either word or non-word recognition. The results are discussed in terms of the neuroanatomy and perceptual abilities of the upper and the lower VF and implications for other studies of letter-string perception in the upper and the lower VF are presented.     

Sources of individual differences in fraction skills

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate a conceptual model of relations between two kinds of mathematical knowledge (simple arithmetic and conceptual knowledge), two kinds of child characteristics (working memory and on-task related classroom behavior), and individual differences in three kinds of fraction outcomes (fraction computation, estimation, and word problems) in 105 fifth grade students. Structural equation modeling provided consistent evidence that conceptual knowledge independently contributes to individual differences in the three fraction outcomes. Simple arithmetic knowledge was uniquely related only to variability in fraction computation skills. Mathematical knowledge was found to mediate some of the contributions of both working memory and classroom behavior on variability in fraction outcomes. These supported mediating processes extend the current literature by explication of the pathways via which characteristics of children may affect individual differences in fraction outcomes.     

Is perseveration caused by inhibition failure? Evidence from preschool children's inferences about word meanings

Four studies examined the relation between children's cognitive inhibition and flexibility in a lexical inference task. Children's linguistic flexibility was assessed by the Flexible Induction of Meaning (FIM) test (Deák, 2000a), which requires that children shift inferences about the meanings of several words for novel objects. In Study 1, 54 3-year-olds either were trained between blocks of problems, for a delay of 3 min, or received no training or delay. Training delays did not influence perseveration. In Study 2 (N=72 3- and 4-year-olds') novel word problems were grouped either to increase the frequency of cue switches (i.e., reduce response "set") or minimize the interval between problems about the same objects. Again, no effect was found. In Study 3, 48 3- and 4-year-olds completed 6 preliminary trials; in a high interference group these trials generated a response set to be inhibited upon the first switch to a new cue context. This group did not perseverate more than a control group. There was no association between FIM perseveration and a Stroop-like test of verbal inhibition though both were marginally related to receptive vocabulary. In study 4 (48 3- and 4-year-olds), FIM was again unrelated to Stroop performance, but was related to the ability to tell whether a situation or problem is indeterminate. Thus, flexibility across semantic inferences is not influenced by timing, order, and number of pre-switch problems and is not predicted by individual differences in a test of verbal inhibition. However previously reported age and individual differences in flexible induction of word meanings are robust and related to vocabulary and logical ability.