scholarly journals Increasing the benefits of eye-tracking devices in divided visual field studies of cerebral asymmetry

1998 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey R. Patching ◽  
Timothy R. Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Cerebral Asymmetry ◽  
Divided Visual Field ◽  
Tracking Devices

Lateralized Processing of Faces

2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Bombari ◽  
Nora Preuss ◽  
Fred W. Mast
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Configural Processing ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Divided Visual Field ◽  
Configural Information ◽  
Test Face ◽  
The Right ◽  
Featural Processing

We investigated the lateralized processing of featural and configural information in face recognition in two divided visual field studies. In Experiment 1, participants matched the identity of a cue face containing either featural (scrambled faces) or configural (blurred faces) information with an intact test face presented subsequently either in the right visual field (RVF) or in the left visual field (LVF). Unilateral presentation was controlled by monitoring eye movements. The results show an advantage of the left hemisphere (LH) over the right hemisphere (RH) for featural processing and a specialization of the RH for configural compared to featural processing. In Experiment 2, we focused on configural processing and its relationship to familiarity. Either learned or novel test faces were presented in the LVF or the RVF. Participants recognized learned faces better when presented in the LVF than in the RVF, suggesting that the RH has an advantage in the recognition of learned faces. Because the recognition of familiar faces relies strongly on configural information ( Buttle & Raymond, 2003 ), we argue that the advantage of the RH over the LH in configural processing is a function of familiarity.

Central Fixations are Inadequately Controlled by Instructions Alone: Implications for Studying Cerebral Asymmetry

1998 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 371-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Jordan ◽  
Geoffrey R. Patching ◽  
A. David Milner
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Retinal Eccentricity ◽  
Cerebral Asymmetry ◽  
Central Fixation Point ◽  
Fixation Location ◽  
The Right ◽  
Tracking Device ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Central Fixation

A fundamental concern when using visual presentations to study cerebral asymmetry is to ensure that stimuli are presented with the same degree of retinal eccentricity from a central fixation point in either visual field. However, a widely used procedure intended to control fixation location merely instructs participants to fixate appropriately without any other means of ensuring that central fixations actually occur. We assessed the validity of assuming that instructions alone ensure central fixation by using the traditional R VF advantage for words and either (a) only instructions to fixate centrally, or (b) an eye-tracking device that ensured central fixation on every trial. Experiments 1 and 2 found that when only instructions were given, the vast majority of fixations were not central, and more occurred to the right of centre than to the left. Moreover, the prevalence of non-central fixations was otherwise disguised by the finding that both fixation procedures produced similar R VF advantages in overt performance. The impact of typical non-central fixations on performance was revealed by systematically manipulating fixation location in Experiment 3, where deviations in fixation of only 0.25° from centre had a reliable impact on visual field effects. Implications of these findings for studies of cerebral asymmetry are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document