Script as a Priming Stimulus for Lexical Decisions with Visual Hemifield Stimulation

1997 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Faust ◽  
Harvey Babkoff
Keyword(s):  
Priming Stimulus ◽  
Lexical Decisions ◽  
Visual Hemifield

Right-Hemisphere Specialization for Contour Grouping

2014 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 331-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregor Volberg
Keyword(s):  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Contour Detection ◽  
Global Processing ◽  
Detection Accuracy ◽  
Frequency Spectra ◽  
Visual Hemifield ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
A Chain ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hemisphere Specialization

Previous studies often revealed a right-hemisphere specialization for processing the global level of compound visual stimuli. Here we explore whether a similar specialization exists for the detection of intersected contours defined by a chain of local elements. Subjects were presented with arrays of randomly oriented Gabor patches that could contain a global path of collinearly arranged elements in the left or in the right visual hemifield. As expected, the detection accuracy was higher for contours presented to the left visual field/right hemisphere. This difference was absent in two control conditions where the smoothness of the contour was decreased. The results demonstrate that the contour detection, often considered to be driven by lateral coactivation in primary visual cortex, relies on higher-level visual representations that differ between the hemispheres. Furthermore, because contour and non-contour stimuli had the same spatial frequency spectra, the results challenge the view that the right-hemisphere advantage in global processing depends on a specialization for processing low spatial frequencies.

Semantic Priming by Pictures in Lexical Decisions in Visual Fields

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Netherland ◽  
Daniel J. Schmoller ◽  
Quintino R. Mano ◽  
David C. Osmon
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Priming ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Lexical Decisions

Attention goes both ways: Shifting attention influences lexical decisions.

2018 ◽  
Vol 147 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Mills ◽  
Paul Boychuk ◽  
Alison L. Chasteen ◽  
Jay Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decisions ◽  
Shifting Attention

scholarly journals Lateralization in monogamous pairs: wild geese prefer to keep their partner in the left hemifield except when disturbed

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmira Zaynagutdinova ◽  
Karina Karenina ◽  
Andrey Giljov
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Natural Setting ◽  
Intraspecific Interactions ◽  
Brain Hemispheres ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Anser Albifrons ◽  
Significant Bias ◽  
Visual Hemifield ◽  
The Right

Abstract Behavioural lateralization, which reflects the functional specializations of the two brain hemispheres, is assumed to play an important role in cooperative intraspecific interactions. However, there are few studies focused on the lateralization in cooperative behaviours of individuals, especially in a natural setting. In the present study, we investigated lateralized spatial interactions between the partners in life-long monogamous pairs. The male-female pairs of two geese species (barnacle, Branta leucopsis, and white-fronted, Anser albifrons geese), were observed during different stages of the annual cycle in a variety of conditions. In geese flocks, we recorded which visual hemifield (left/right) the following partner used to monitor the leading partner relevant to the type of behaviour and the disturbance factors. In a significant majority of pairs, the following bird viewed the leading partner with the left eye during routine behaviours such as resting and feeding in undisturbed conditions. This behavioural lateralization, implicating the right hemisphere processing, was consistent across the different aggregation sites and years of the study. In contrast, no significant bias was found in a variety of geese behaviours associated with enhanced disturbance (when alert on water, flying or fleeing away when disturbed, feeding during the hunting period, in urban area feeding and during moulting). We hypothesize that the increased demands for right hemisphere processing to deal with stressful and emergency situations may interfere with the manifestation of lateralization in social interactions.

Lateralization of lexical processing in monolinguals and bilinguals

2021 ◽  
pp. 136700692110188
Author(s):  
Filiz Mergen ◽  
Gulmira Kuruoglu
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Visual Hemifield ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Brain Correlates ◽  
Orthographic Neighbors

Aims and objectives: This study aims to investigate how lexical processing (LP) is organized in early Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals. Methodology: We used a visual hemifield paradigm where bilingual ( n = 48) and monolingual ( n = 53) participants performed a lexical decision task. Bilingual participants performed the task in both their languages. Data and analysis: We recorded response times (RTs) and the accuracy rates (ARs) of the participants. An analysis of variance and t-test were run to analyze the bilingual and monolingual data, respectively. Findings: The results obtained from the analysis of the RTs and ARs for the Turkish and English words showed a balanced hemispheric organization in LP in bilingual speakers. The RTs for Turkish words in the monolingual group provided supportive evidence for the predominant role of the left hemisphere in LP. However, no significant difference was found in the accuracy of their answers, suggesting that the monolingual participants’ performance was not influenced by visual field of presentation of the words. Finally, the comparison of the two groups revealed that bilingual participants’ performance was inferior to monolinguals’ in speed and accuracy of processing of words presented in both visual fields. This result gives further support for the differential representation of LP in monolinguals and bilinguals. Originality: The psycholinguistic literature abounds with studies of LP in bilinguals and monolinguals from a variety of language backgrounds; however, there is much less data regarding the brain correlates of LP in Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals. Implications: Since Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals are underrepresented in the literature as compared to the population who speak other languages with alphabetic writing, this study provides preliminary data for future studies. Limitations: We did not control for gender or lexical factors such as orthographic neighbors when designing the word sets used as stimuli.

scholarly journals Sustained Splits of Attention within versus across Visual Hemifields Produce Distinct Spatial Gain Profiles

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Walter ◽  
Christian Keitel ◽  
Matthias M. Müller
Keyword(s):  
Visual Attention ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Behavioral Performance ◽  
Lower Visual Field ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Visual Hemifield ◽  
Attention Tasks ◽  
Visual Cortices ◽  
Cortical Visual Processing ◽  
Visual Hemifields

Visual attention can be focused concurrently on two stimuli at noncontiguous locations while intermediate stimuli remain ignored. Nevertheless, behavioral performance in multifocal attention tasks falters when attended stimuli fall within one visual hemifield as opposed to when they are distributed across left and right hemifields. This “different-hemifield advantage” has been ascribed to largely independent processing capacities of each cerebral hemisphere in early visual cortices. Here, we investigated how this advantage influences the sustained division of spatial attention. We presented six isoeccentric light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in the lower visual field, each flickering at a different frequency. Participants attended to two LEDs that were spatially separated by an intermediate LED and responded to synchronous events at to-be-attended LEDs. Task-relevant pairs of LEDs were either located in the same hemifield (“within-hemifield” conditions) or separated by the vertical meridian (“across-hemifield” conditions). Flicker-driven brain oscillations, steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs), indexed the allocation of attention to individual LEDs. Both behavioral performance and SSVEPs indicated enhanced processing of attended LED pairs during “across-hemifield” relative to “within-hemifield” conditions. Moreover, SSVEPs demonstrated effective filtering of intermediate stimuli in “across-hemifield” condition only. Thus, despite identical physical distances between LEDs of attended pairs, the spatial profiles of gain effects differed profoundly between “across-hemifield” and “within-hemifield” conditions. These findings corroborate that early cortical visual processing stages rely on hemisphere-specific processing capacities and highlight their limiting role in the concurrent allocation of visual attention to multiple locations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document