Spatial frequencies and the cerebral hemispheres: contrast sensitivity, visible persistence, and letter classification

The hypothesis that the two cerebral hemispheres are specialized for processing different visual spatial frequencies was investigated in three experiments. No differences between the left and right visual fields were found for: (1) contrast-sensitivity functions measured binocularly with vertical gratings ranging from 0.5 to 12 cycles per degree (cpd); (2) visible persistence durations for 1- and 10-cpd gratings measured with a stimulus alternation method; and (3) accuracy (d') and reaction times to correctly identify digitally filtered letters as targets (L or H) or nontargets (T or F). One significant difference, however, was found: In Experiment 3, a higher decision criterion (beta) was used when filtered letters were identified in the right visual field than when they were identified in the left. The letters were filtered with annular, 1-octave band-pass filters with center spatial frequencies of 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 cpd. Combining four center frequencies with three letter sizes (0.5 degrees, 1 degree, and 2 degrees high) made some stimuli equivalent in distal spatial frequency (cycles per object) and some equivalent in proximal spatial frequency (cycles per degree). The effective stimulus in the third experiment seemed to be proximal spatial frequency (cycles per degree) not distal (cycles per object). We conclude that each cerebral hemisphere processes visual spatial frequency information with equal accuracy but that different decision rules are used.     

Identification of letters in the predesignated target paradigm: a word superiority effect for the common word the

The size of the perceptual unit used in reading was addressed using the predesignated target paradigm. Sixteen subjects viewed the following stimuli in random order: the words tee, the, tie, and toe; the nonwords eet, eht, eit, and eot; and the letters e, h, i, and o. Subjects fixated on the location of the center letter and identified the letter as e, h, i, or o, alternatives which were known to them at the onset. A word superiority effect was obtained for the common word the but not for the less common words tee, tie, and toe. The word superiority effect was attributable to bias rather than discriminability: Subjects exhibited a bias to perceive the words in this experiment as the (i.e., there was a bias to perceive h in the t e stimulus presentations). These results suggest that the common word the is processed in reading units that are larger than the letter, and that the system is biased to perceive common rather than uncommon words in data-limited conditions.     

Hemisphericsymmetries in the identification of band-pass filtered letters Reply to Christman et al. (1997)

Christman, Kitterle, and Niebauer (1997) have examined the hypothesis that the two cerebral hemispheres are specialized for processing different ranges of spatial frequency. Their two experiments partially replicated an experiment of Peterzell, Harvey, and Hardyck (1989), who used Sergent's (1982) letter identification paradigm with spatial-frequency band-pass filtered letters as stimuli. We acknowledge the unusual strengths of Christman et al.'s experiments, but argue that the results support the original conclusion of Peterzell et al.: The results are not attributable to hemispheric asymmetries in spatial frequency processing.     

On the nonrelation between spatial frequency and cerebral hemispheric competence

The hypothesis that the two cerebral hemispheres are specialized for processing different visual spatial frequencies is discussed in reference to Christman's (1989) review. It is suggested that the relevant results from every study reviewed by Christman which support the hypothesis can also be explained in terms of the total amount of visible information or energy contained in a visual stimulus, and the right hemisphere's relative resistance to information degradation. A recent study provides evidence in support of this total visible information/energy hypothesis, and appropriate measures of information/energy are discussed. Furthermore, results from the studies reviewed may reflect response bias and not hemispheric specialization or competence. The few studies which examine response bias support such an interpretation.