Left—Right Visual Field Asymmetry in Bistable Motion Perception

Perception ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 721-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Casco ◽  
Donatella Spinelli
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
The Third ◽  
Group Movement ◽  
Left Handed ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Left Right Asymmetry

Twelve observers viewed two alternating frames, each consisting of three rectangular bars which were displaced laterally by one cycle in one frame with respect to the other. At long interframe intervals (IFIs) observers perceived a group of three elements moving as a whole (group movement), whereas with IFIs shorter than 40–60 ms the overlapping elements in each frame appeared stationary while the third element appeared to move from one end of the display to the other (end-to-end movement). The percentage of group movement responses in central viewing was compared to those obtained for stimulus presentation in the left and right visual fields (4 deg eccentricity), for opposite horizontal directions of motion. All ten right-handed subjects showed a left-field advantage in sensitivity to group movement. The two left-handed subjects showed a similar advantage in sensitivity with right-field presentation. The effects of monocular vision, hand used in the task, spatial frequency, and contrast on visual field asymmetry were all investigated in two right-handed subjects. None of these factors affected the left—right asymmetry.

Hemispheric Asymmetry as a Function of Handedness: Perception of Facial Affect Stimuli

1996 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 264-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Erik Everhart ◽  
David W. Harrison ◽  
W. David Crews
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Hemispheric Asymmetry ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Affective Stimuli ◽  
Left Handed ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
The Right

Hemispheric asymmetry in 14 left- and 14 right-handed persons shown tachistoscopically presented emotional stimuli to left and right visual fields was examined using a forced-choice, reaction-time paradigm in which subjects were asked to identify positive and negative faces. Neutral faces were included within the two-alternative forced-choice paradigm. Reaction time and response-bias measures were recorded. Analysis indicated differential lateralization for left-handed and right-handed subjects with respect to neutral affective stimuli. While right-handed subjects' perceptions of neutral stimuli remained consistent across visual fields, left-handed ones identified neutral stimuli as more positive (happy) when presented to the left visual field and negative (angry) when presented to the right visual field. Implications for differential lateralization patterns among left- and right-handed adults are discussed.

Lateral Onset Asynchrony in Left-Handers

1976 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 255-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Hatta
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Standard Stimulus ◽  
The Other ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Left Handed ◽  
The Right ◽  
Onset Asynchrony

Study of matching judgment was designed to demonstrate an effect of lateral onset asynchrony in left-handed subjects, 7 males and 8 females. Japanese Hirakana letters or random forms were presented to one visual field first and to the other visual field second. 15 left-handers were requested to judge whether the successively presented stimuli were “same” or “different.” The results showed that for both types of stimuli there are no differences in accuracy of matching judgment whether the standard stimulus was presented to the right visual field first or to the left. These results indicate that the left-handed subjects may have a tendency toward hemispheric equi-potentiality for recognition of both verbal and non-verbal materials.

Models of Response Time to Peripheral Stimuli

1974 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 533-533
Author(s):  
D.S. Kochhar ◽  
T.M. Fraser
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Response Time ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Stimulus Location ◽  
Stimulus Size ◽  
Tracking Task ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Simulated Driving ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
The Right

The variable contribution of peripherally presented stimuli in a A sensory motor task has been explored in terms of stimulus and environmental variables. A simulated driving task was chosen as being a representative compensatory tracking task. Empirical models have been developed using response surface methodology, statistical design and data collected on a simulator with a 240° wrap-around screen and projection systems very much like cinerama. In this research, seven factors were isolated for a study of their effects on detection latency to peripherally presented stimuli when the subject was ‘driving’. These factors were stimulus size (circular stimuli between 18′ and 60′), stimulus color (red, white and green), stimulus-background contrast (background luminance 1ft.L and stimulus luminance of 30, 60 and 90 ft.L), stimulus location along the horizontal (between ± 90°) and vertical meridians (between ± 26°), intensity of continuous white noise (between 52 and 100 dbA), and complexity of the continuous central tracking task measured in terms of the simulated driving speed. Three levels of each variable were selected in a 7 factor Box-Behnken design. Twenty undergraduates between the ages 19 and 26 participated in the experiment. It was found that, in this multivariable environment when all seven factors were simultaneously varied, the effects of noise, stimulus location in the visual field and stimulus size were the more important determinants of response latency. In addition, marked differences for the left and right visual fields were observed for the right-handed subject population. Four models have been developed: two for the left visual field, with and without the continuous central task (CCT), and two for the right visual field for the same conditions. The response was found to be of the form 1/Yr = f (xi); i= 1,2,… 7 for both the left and right visual fields in the presence of the CCT. In the absence of the CCT the model was of the form Yr = f (xr) for the left and 1/2 = f (xi) for the right visual field where Yr = response time in millisec. and Yr xi = variables in equations. Response curves have been presented to illustrate the variation of response time with each of the seven variables for regions where response time may be expected to be a minimum. The implications of these curves and the models on which they are based have been examined from the design point of view.

Recognition of Alphabetical Arrays Presented in the Right and Left Visual Fields

1969 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Fudin
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Cell Assembly ◽  
A Cell ◽  
Experimental Findings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Central Fixation

Six-letter nonsense arrays were tachistoscopically presented successively in the right visual field (RVF) and left visual field (LVF) at four different displacements from a central fixation point (FP) to 20 Ss. Recognition scores were significantly greater for material exposed in the RVF at each of the first three displacements and for the average of all displacements. In each case the higher recognition score for stimuli in the RVF was limited to letters located in the left-array half (letters 1, 2 and 3). An investigation into the dynamics of scanning indicated that these three letters are more advantageously situated when presented in the RVF. This methodological inconsistency brings into question the use of the results obtained from the successive mode of stimulus presentation as evidence for Hebb's notion of a cell assembly. Several ideas concerning the dynamics of scanning which emerged from the experimental findings were discussed.

Cerebral Dominance and Attentional Bias in Word Recognition

1988 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 791-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria Leventhal
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Cerebral Dominance ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Functional Localization ◽  
Left And Right

This study investigated the role of cerebral dominance, functional localization, and attentional bias on the recognition of neutral and emotionally charged words presented unilaterally and bilaterally by a tachistoscope to the left and right visual fields of 42 left and 42 right handers. The major findings were: (1) Over-all, right handers perceived more words than left handers; (2) Although more neutral words were perceived, there were no interactive effects for type of word; (3) Unilateral presentation: LVF = RVF for left and right handers; Bilateral presentation: left handers evidenced a left visual-field advantage, right handers evidenced a right visual-field advantage; (4) Directional cuing did not magnify the existing visual field advantage but increased efficiency of recognition for words presented to the correctly cued nondominant visual field and decreased efficiency of recognition for words presented to the incorrectly cued dominant visual field. It was concluded that, although each hemisphere was equally capable of processing single words, cerebral dominance and functional localization interact with attentional bias to produce the observed differential in word recognition of the left and right visual fields.

Technology Study on the Perception of Stereopsis in Fovea Field

2014 ◽  
Vol 1022 ◽  
pp. 341-344
Author(s):  
Yan Wu ◽  
Qi Li ◽  
Xiang Bo Han ◽  
Hui Ling Shen
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Technology Study ◽  
Random Dot Stereograms ◽  
Left And Right

Random-dot stereograms were used as stimuli to investigate the perception of stereopsis in fovea field. The response of every subject was recorded in different positions in the fovea field: upper, lower, left, right field and with different eccentricities of 1.39º, 1.93º, 2.48º, 3.02º, 3.57º. The results showed that reaction times increased with increasing eccentricities wherever the disparity zone was presented relative to the fixation point. No significant differences were found between reaction times to the upper and lower visual fields. And there were no significant differences between left and right visual field. But there were marked superiorities for reaction times between upper and right field at all eccentricities.

The Effect of Orthographic Uniqueness and Deviation Points on Lexical Decisions: Evidence from Unilateral and Bilateral-Redundant Presentations

2003 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annukka K. Lindell ◽  
Michael E.R. Nicholls ◽  
Anne E. Castles
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Stimulus Orientation ◽  
Facilitatory Effect ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Sequential Effects ◽  
Uniqueness Point ◽  
Left And Right

Words with an early or late orthographic uniqueness point and nonwords with an early or late orthographic deviation point were presented to the left, right, or both visual fields simultaneously. In Experiment 1, 20 participants made lexical decision judgements to horizontal stimulus presentations. In Experiment 2, a further 20 participants completed the task using vertical presentations to control for attentional biases. Consistent with previous research, words with earlier orthographic uniqueness points prompted faster responses across visual fields, regardless of stimulus orientation. Although research has suggested that the left hemisphere's superiority for language processing stems from a comparatively parallel processing strategy, with the right hemisphere reliant upon a serial mechanism, left and right visual field presentations were not differentially affected by orthographic uniqueness point. This suggests that differential sequential effects previously reported result during processes other than retrieval from the lexicon. The overall right visual field advantage observed using horizontal presentations disappeared when stimuli were presented vertically. Contrary to expectations, there was a facilitatory effect of late orthographic deviation point for horizontal nonword presentations. Overall, the results were interpreted as being consistent with predictions of a cohort model of word recognition, and they highlighted the effect of stimulus orientation on left and right hemisphere word recognition.

Spatio-Temporal Discrimination of Frequency in the Right and Left Visual Fields: A Preliminary Report

1981 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 311-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Rao ◽  
Daniel Rourke ◽  
R. Douglas Whitman
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Visual Information ◽  
Temporal Discrimination ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Temporal Variations ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
The Right

Normal right-handed subjects were presented with luminance patterns varying sinusoidally in both space and time to the left and right visual fields. With no temporal variation in the stimuli, detection thresholds for the left visual field were lower than those for the right visual field for all spatial frequencies. However, with increasing temporal variations, a reversal in detection of threshold occurred, with the right visual field surpassing the left. This finding suggests that left and right visual processing may be differentially efficient for temporal and spatial visual information.

Hemispheric Specialization for Processing Chinese Characters: Some Evidence from Lexical Decision Vocal Reaction Times

1989 ◽  
Vol 69 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1083-1089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Rastatter ◽  
Gail Scukanec ◽  
Jeff Grilliot
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Hemispheric Specialization ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Decision Processes ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Chinese Characters ◽  
Error Type ◽  
Chinese Subjects

Lexical decision vocal reaction times (RT) were obtained for a group of Chinese subjects to unilateral tachistoscopically presented pictorial, single, and combination Chinese characters. The RT showed a significant right visual-field advantage, with significant correlations of performance between the visual fields for each type of character. Error analysis gave a significant interaction between visual fields and error type—significantly more false positive errors occurred following left visual-field inputs. These results suggest that the left hemisphere was responsible for processing each type of character, possibly reflecting superior postaccess lexical-decision processes.

On the Relation between Visual Spatial Attention and Visual Field Asymmetries

1992 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. A Mondor ◽  
M.P. Bryden
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Attention ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Letter Identification ◽  
Functional Capabilities ◽  
Visual Spatial ◽  
The Right

In the typical visual laterality experiment, words and letters are more rapidly and accurately identified in the right visual field than in the left. However, while such studies usually control fixation, the deployment of visual attention is rarely restricted. The present studies investigated the influence of visual attention on the visual field asymmetries normally observed in single-letter identification and lexical decision tasks. Attention was controlled using a peripheral cue that provided advance knowledge of the location of the forthcoming stimulus. The time period between the onset of the cue and the onset of the stimulus (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony—SOA) was varied, such that the time available for attention to focus upon the location was controlled. At short SO As a right visual field advantage for identifying single letters and for making lexical decisions was apparent. However, at longer SOAs letters and words presented in the two visual fields were identified equally well. It is concluded that visual field advantages arise from an interaction of attentional and structural factors and that the attentional component in visual field asymmetries must be controlled in order to approximate more closely a true assessment of the relative functional capabilities of the right and left cerebral hemispheres.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document