In One's Right (or Left) Mind: What Lexicality Reveals About Hemispheric Processing Asymmetries

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Tat ◽  
Tamiko Azuma
Keyword(s):  
Hemispheric Processing ◽  
Processing Asymmetries

Hemispheric processing asymmetries: Implications for memory

2001 ◽  
Vol 46 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 135-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret G. Funnell ◽  
Paul M. Corballis ◽  
Michael S. Gazzaniga
Keyword(s):  
Hemispheric Processing ◽  
Processing Asymmetries

scholarly journals Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data

Language ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nayoung Kwon ◽  
Robert Kluender ◽  
Marta Kutas ◽  
Maria Polinsky
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Object Processing ◽  
Processing Asymmetries

Use of Magnitude-Estimation Scaling for Predicting Hemispheric Processing of Lexical Decisions

1993 ◽  
Vol 76 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1147-1152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee W. Ellis ◽  
Joan N. Kaderavek ◽  
Michael P. Rastatter
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Magnitude Estimation ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Hemispheric Processing ◽  
Lexical Decisions ◽  
Significant Magnitude ◽  
Abstract Words

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness and validity of magnitude-estimation scaling as an alternative to a traditional, somewhat more cumbersome reaction-time procedure in the assessment of hemispheric processing asymmetry. Lexical decision vocal reaction times and magnitude-estimation scaling values were obtained for 16 normal subjects to tachistoscopically presented concrete and abstract words. Analysis of variance showed identical interactions of field x stimuli for each dependent variable while all pair-wise correlations between these measures were significant. Magnitude-estimation scaling may be a sensitive measure of visual psychophysical differences in hemispheric processing and may circumvent problems with variance of latencies associated with disordered populations.

scholarly journals Different Patterns of Attention Modulation in Early N140 and Late P300 sERPs Following Ipsilateral vs. Contralateral Stimulation at the Fingers and Cheeks

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Lindenbaum ◽  
Sebastian Zehe ◽  
Jan Anlauff ◽  
Thomas Hermann ◽  
Johanna Maria Kissler
Keyword(s):  
Body Part ◽  
Oddball Paradigm ◽  
Body Parts ◽  
Somatosensory Processing ◽  
Hemispheric Processing ◽  
Contralateral Stimulation ◽  
Early Processing ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Ipsilateral Stimulation ◽  
Stimulation Of

Intra-hemispheric interference has been often observed when body parts with neighboring representations within the same hemisphere are stimulated. However, patterns of interference in early and late somatosensory processing stages due to the stimulation of different body parts have not been explored. Here, we explore functional similarities and differences between attention modulation of the somatosensory N140 and P300 elicited at the fingers vs. cheeks. In an active oddball paradigm, 22 participants received vibrotactile intensity deviant stimulation either ipsilateral (within-hemisphere) or contralateral (between-hemisphere) at the fingers or cheeks. The ipsilateral deviant always covered a larger area of skin than the contralateral deviant. Overall, both N140 and P300 amplitudes were higher following stimulation at the cheek and N140 topographies differed between fingers and cheek stimulation. For the N140, results showed higher deviant ERP amplitudes following contralateral than ipsilateral stimulation, regardless of the stimulated body part. N140 peak latency differed between stimulated body parts with shorter latencies for the stimulation at the fingers. Regarding P300 amplitudes, contralateral deviant stimulation at the fingers replicated the N140 pattern, showing higher responses and shorter latencies than ipsilateral stimulation at the fingers. For the stimulation at the cheeks, ipsilateral deviants elicited higher P300 amplitudes and longer latencies than contralateral ones. These findings indicate that at the fingers ipsilateral deviant stimulation leads to intra-hemispheric interference, with significantly smaller ERP amplitudes than in contralateral stimulation, both at early and late processing stages. By contrast, at the cheeks, intra-hemispheric interference is selective for early processing stages. Therefore, the mechanisms of intra-hemispheric processing differ from inter-hemispheric ones and the pattern of intra-hemispheric interference in early and late processing stages is body-part specific.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document