scholarly journals Right hemisphere superiority for executive control of attention

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfredo Spagna ◽  
Tae Hyeong Kim ◽  
Tingting Wu ◽  
Jin Fan
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Spatial Orienting ◽  
Conflict Effect ◽  
Hemisphere Dominance ◽  
The Right

AbstractOver forty years have passed since the first evidence showing the unbalanced attentional allocation of humans across the two visual fields, and since then, a wealth of behavioral, neurophysiological, and clinical data increasingly showed a right hemisphere dominance for orienting of attention. However, inconsistent evidence exists regarding the right-hemisphere dominance for executive control of attention, possibly due to a lack of consideration of its dynamics with the alerting and orienting functions. In this study, we used a version of the Attentional Network Test with lateralized presentation of the stimuli to the left visual field (processed by the right hemisphere, RH) and right visual field (processed by the left hemisphere, LH) to examine visual field differences in executive control of attention under conditions of alerting or orienting. Analyses of behavioral performance (reaction time and error rate) showed a more efficient executive control (reduced conflict effect) in the RH compared to the LH for the reaction time, under conditions of increased alerting and of informative spatial orienting. These results demonstrate the right-hemisphere superiority for executive control, and that this effect depends on the activation of the alerting and orienting functions.

scholarly journals Exploration of the Hemispheric Differences in Number Processing of the Brain

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-61
Author(s):  
Aaron Wyland Walters
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Reaction Time Data ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Hemispheric Differences ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Central Target ◽  
The Right

Abstract The current study explored how reaction time and accuracy differed in the left and right visual fields by altering various dot clusters in both number and organization. Researchers have hypothesized that the left hemisphere uses counting to judge small, disorganized clusters of objects accurately and that the right hemisphere uses estimation to judge clusters organized in geometric shape accurately. The current study tested both visual fields of participant’s with organized and unorganized clusters of dots. Dots were clustered between 3 and 12. The clusters were presented on separate sides of a computer screen to analyze visual field differences in counting and estimation. A central target was presented on the screen to maintain central focus for the visual fields. Data from 40 participants (30 men, 10 women) from a small liberal arts college indicated that when clusters reached between 7 and 8 dots, organization in the right visual field created inaccuracy in judgment. Reaction time data indicated that as number level increased, reaction time slowed. Reaction time data also showed that organization slowed reaction times in both visual fields. These data indicated that different numerical judgment abilities do exist within the hemispheres.

Attention and Hemispheric Differences in Reaction Time during Simultaneous Audio-Visual Tasks

1973 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 404-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gina Geffen ◽  
J. L. Bradshaw ◽  
N. C. Nettleton
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Auditory Task ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Hemispheric Differences ◽  
Language Functions ◽  
The Right

The effect of different types of competing auditory tasks on laterality differences in visual perception was investigated. Right-handed subjects were presented with digits which occurred randomly in the left or right visual fields. They responded vocally to previously specified digits in a go, no-go reaction time situation. In the absence of any competing auditory task, digits presented in the right visual field were processed more quickly. This visual field difference in reaction time was in the same direction while subjects performed a secondary musical task. However, when a secondary verbal task had to be performed, digits in the left visual field received faster responses. The results support the view that the right hemisphere is capable of some language functions, and that hemispheric differences in performance have at their basis a quantitative asymmetry, which can be reversed even in normal subjects by overloading their limited capacity.

Vocal Reaction Times to Tachistoscopically Presented High- and Low-Frequency Verbs: Some Evidence for Selective Minor Hemisphere Linguistic Analysis

1988 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Rastatter ◽  
Catherine Loren
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Intact Brain ◽  
The Right

The current study investigated the capacity of the right hemisphere to process verbs using a paradigm proven reliable for predicting differential, minor hemisphere lexical analysis in the normal, intact brain. Vocal reaction times of normal subjects were measured to unilaterally presented verbs of high and of low frequency. A significant interaction was noted between the stimulus items and visual fields. Post hoc tests showed that vocal reaction times to verbs of high frequency were significantly faster following right visual-field presentations (right hemisphere). No significant differences in vocal reaction time occurred between the two visual fields for the verbs of low frequency. Also, significant differences were observed between the two types of verbs following left visual-field presentation but not the right. These results were interpreted to suggest that right-hemispheric analysis was restricted to the verbs of high frequency in the presence of a dominant left hemisphere.

Right Hemisphere Memory Bias Does Not Extend to Involuntary Memories for Negative Scenes

Perception ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Ella K. Moeck ◽  
Nicole A. Thomas ◽  
Melanie K. T. Takarangi
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Memory Bias ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Hemispheric Differences ◽  
Involuntary Memory ◽  
Involuntary Memories ◽  
The Right

Attention is unequally distributed across the visual field. Due to greater right than left hemisphere activation for visuospatial attention, people attend slightly more to the left than the right side. As a result, people voluntarily remember visual stimuli better when it first appears in the left than the right visual field. But does this effect—termed a right hemisphere memory bias—also enhance involuntary memory? We manipulated the presentation location of 100 highly negative images (chosen to increase the likelihood that participants would experience any involuntary memories) in three conditions: predominantly leftward (right hemisphere bias), predominantly rightward (left hemisphere bias), or equally in both visual fields (bilateral). We measured subsequent involuntary memories immediately and for 3 days after encoding. Contrary to predictions, biased hemispheric processing did not affect short- or long-term involuntary memory frequency or duration. Future research should measure hemispheric differences at retrieval, rather than just encoding.

Functional Hemispheric Asymmetry and Belief in ESP: Towards a “Neuropsychology of Belief”

1993 ◽  
Vol 77 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1299-1308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Brugger ◽  
Alex Gamma ◽  
René Muri ◽  
Markus Schafer ◽  
Kirsten I. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Hemispheric Asymmetry ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Verbal Tasks ◽  
Hemisphere Dominance ◽  
The Right

30 right-handed subjects were given a lateralized tachistoscopic lexical-decision task. Subjects' belief in extrasensory perception (ESP) was assessed with a single six-point scale; 16 subjects were designated as believers in ESP and 14 subjects as nonbelievers. Believers in ESP did not exhibit a hemispheric asymmetry for the task while nonbelievers exhibited the expected right visual-field/left-hemisphere dominance documented in the literature. Believers' lack of asymmetry was not caused by an impaired left-hemisphere performance but rather by a significantly enhanced lexical-decision accuracy in the left visual field/right hemisphere compared to nonbelievers. These results are compatible with previous studies indicating a correlation between belief in ESP and a bias for right-hemisphere processing. Moreover, the results are relevant for a discussion of an association between paranormal beliefs and schizotypy: highly schizotypal individuals are not only particularly prone to believe in ESP but are also known to show an attenuation of hemispheric asymmetries in lateralized verbal tasks due to an enhanced contribution of the right hemisphere. We suggest that the neurological basis of delusion-like beliefs may involve a release of right-hemisphere function from left-hemisphere control and sketch the focus of research for a future “neuropsychology of belief.”

Categorical versus Coordinate Spatial Processing: Effects of Blurring and Hemispheric Asymmetry

1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Cowin ◽  
Joseph B. Hellige
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Information ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Spatial Processing ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Horizontal Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Categorical Task ◽  
The Right

The present experiment examined the effects of dioptric blurring on the performance of two different spatial processing tasks using the same visual stimuli. One task (the above/below, categorical task) required subjects to indicate whether a dot was above or below a horizontal line. The other task (the coordinate, near/far task) required subjects to indicate whether the dot was within 3 mm of the line. For both tasks, the stimuli on each trial were presented to either the right visual field and left hemisphere (RVF/LH) or the left Visual field and right hemisphere (LVF/RH). For the above/below task, dioptric blurring consistently increased reaction time (RT) and did so equally on LVF/RH and RVF/LH trials. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the two visual fields for either clear or blurred stimuli. For the near/far task, dioptric blurring had no consistent effect on either RT or error rate for either visual field. On an initial block of trials, however, there were significantly fewer errors on LVF/RH than on RVF/LH trials, with the LVF/RH advantage being independent of whether the stimuli were clear or blurred. This initial LVF/RH advantage disappeared quickly with practice, regardless of whether the stimuli were clear or blurred. This pattern of results suggests that for both cerebral hemispheres, somewhat different aspects of visual information are relevant for categorical versus coordinate spatial processing and that the right hemisphere is superior to the left for coordinate (but not categorical) spatial processing.

scholarly journals Right Hemisphere Dominance in Visual Statistical Learning

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 1088-1099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew E. Roser ◽  
József Fiser ◽  
Richard N. Aslin ◽  
Michael S. Gazzaniga
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Statistical Learning ◽  
Conceptual Knowledge ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Activation Patterns ◽  
Split Brain ◽  
Visuospatial Processing ◽  
Hemisphere Dominance ◽  
The Right

Several studies report a right hemisphere advantage for visuospatial integration and a left hemisphere advantage for inferring conceptual knowledge from patterns of covariation. The present study examined hemispheric asymmetry in the implicit learning of new visual feature combinations. A split-brain patient and normal control participants viewed multishape scenes presented in either the right or the left visual fields. Unbeknownst to the participants, the scenes were composed from a random combination of fixed pairs of shapes. Subsequent testing found that control participants could discriminate fixed-pair shapes from randomly combined shapes when presented in either visual field. The split-brain patient performed at chance except when both the practice and the test displays were presented in the left visual field (right hemisphere). These results suggest that the statistical learning of new visual features is dominated by visuospatial processing in the right hemisphere and provide a prediction about how fMRI activation patterns might change during unsupervised statistical learning.

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.

Reaction Time, Bilateral Differences, and the Poggendorff and Ponzo Illusions

1978 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 871-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis E. Clayson
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Magnitude Estimation ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Pattern Characteristic ◽  
Bilateral Differences ◽  
The Right ◽  
Encoding Strategy

12 subjects responded with either hand to tachistoscopically presented Poggendorff and Ponzo figures in both their right and left visual fields. Reaction time decreased as illusory magnitude increased for both figures. Reaction time was faster for both figures when presented in the right visual field and showed a pattern characteristic of a dichotomous encoding strategy, while the reaction time for the figures presented in the left visual field followed a pattern characteristic of magnitude estimation.

scholarly journals Lateralization of attention in adults with ADHD: Evidence of pseudoneglect

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartosz Helfer ◽  
Stefanos Maltezos ◽  
Elizabeth Liddle ◽  
Jonna Kuntsi ◽  
Philip Asherson
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Incentive Condition ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
The Right

Abstract Background. We investigated whether adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show pseudoneglect—preferential allocation of attention to the left visual field (LVF) and a resulting slowing of mean reaction times (MRTs) in the right visual field (RVF), characteristic of neurotypical (NT) individuals —and whether lateralization of attention is modulated by presentation speed and incentives. Method. Fast Task, a four-choice reaction-time task where stimuli were presented in LVF or RVF, was used to investigate differences in MRT and reaction time variability (RTV) in adults with ADHD (n = 43) and NT adults (n = 46) between a slow/no-incentive and fast/incentive condition. In the lateralization analyses, pseudoneglect was assessed based on MRT, which was calculated separately for the LVF and RVF for each condition and each study participant. Results. Adults with ADHD had overall slower MRT and increased RTV relative to NT. MRT and RTV improved under the fast/incentive condition. Both groups showed RVF-slowing with no between-group or between-conditions differences in RVF-slowing. Conclusion. Adults with ADHD exhibited pseudoneglect, a NT pattern of lateralization of attention, which was not attenuated by presentation speed and incentives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document