scholarly journals Affective Priming in Visual-field Superiority

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anamitra Basu ◽  
Martial Mermillod ◽  
Martial Mermillod
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Affective Priming ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

scholarly journals Neural correlates of the eye dominance effect in human face perception: the left-visual-field superiority for faces revisited

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 1342-1350
Author(s):  
Wookyoung Jung ◽  
Joong-Gu Kang ◽  
Hyeonjin Jeon ◽  
Miseon Shim ◽  
Ji Sun Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Face Perception ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Dominance Effect ◽  
Neural Correlates ◽  
Human Face ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

Left and Right Visual Field Superiority for Letter Classification

1979 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Jonides
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Task Demands ◽  
Perceptual Processing ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
The Right ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

Two letter classification experiments examine the hypothesis that lateral asymmetries in perceptual processing are sensitive to subtle changes in task demands. The first experiment reports a right visual field superiority for an easy letter classification, but a left field superiority for a difficult classification using the same population of stimuli. Experiment II demonstrates that the right field superiority can be reversed if the easy classification trials are embedded among more difficult trials. The implications of these results for theories of hemispheric localization are discussed.

scholarly journals Does Judgment Feedback affect Visual-Field Superiority as a function of Stimulus Structure and Content?

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Anamitra Basu
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Response Latency ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Recognition Accuracy ◽  
Presentation Mode ◽  
Feedback Condition ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Dependent Variables ◽  
Stimulus Content ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

Visual-field advantage was envisaged as a function of presentation mode (unilateral, bilateral), stimulus structure (word, face), and stimulus content (emotional, neutral) in two conditions, with and without feedback of judgment. Split visual-field paradigm was taken into account with recognition accuracy and response latency as the dependent variables. Stimuli were significantly better recognized in left visual-field than in right visual-field. Unilaterally, rather than bilaterally, presented stimuli were significantly better recognized. Emotional content were intensely recognized than neutral content. Analysis using multivariate ANOVA suggested that words as well as faces were recognized better without judgment feedback condition as compared to with judgment feedback condition; however these stimuli were judged with significantly less response latency following judgment feedback.

Interhemispheric Integration of Compound Nouns: Effects of Stimulus Arrangement and Mode of Presentation

1987 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 663-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Marc Berger ◽  
Etienne Perret ◽  
Annemarie Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Pictorial Representation ◽  
Reading Habits ◽  
Mode Of Presentation ◽  
Compound Nouns ◽  
Bilateral Condition ◽  
Stimulus Arrangement ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

Normal subjects had to name German compound nouns which were presented tachistoscopically. The compound nouns were displayed either unilaterally to the left or right visual field or bilaterally with one element to each visual field. In the bilateral condition a distinction was made as to whether familiar or unfamiliar arrangement of the elements was used. Representation in print was compared with pictorial representation of the compound nouns. A right visual-field superiority was observed with printed representation, but no laterality effects with pictorial representation. Bilateral processing was superior to unilateral processing. Within the bilateral conditions, the familiar arrangement of the elements yielded a significantly better performance than unfamiliar arrangement. This difference can be explained by reading habits and/or by different styles of interhemispheric integration.

Hemispheric Competence and Perceptual Confusability

1983 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 589-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Sergent
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Opposite Direction ◽  
Present Experiment ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Left Visual Field ◽  
Previous Experiment ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Methodological Procedures ◽  
Visual Field Superiority ◽  
Exact Replication

Hemispheric competence in performing easy and difficult letter classification was examined in an exact replication of a previous experiment by Jonides (1979). The present experiment failed to confirm Jonides's finding of right visual field advantage in conditions of perceptual confusability and left visual field superiority when the stimuli were easily discriminable. The results showed a trend in the opposite direction, but no significant interaction. This divergence is discussed with respect to existing evidence and methodological procedures.

Cerebral Asymmetries in Random-Dot Stereopsis: Reversal of Direction with Changes in Dot Size

Perception ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 683-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin B Pitblado
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Hemispheric Specialization ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Cerebral Asymmetries ◽  
Form Recognition ◽  
Random Dot Stereograms ◽  
Visual Field Effect ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The Right ◽  
Visual Field Superiority

Visual field differences in stereoscopic form recognition using Julesz-type random dot stereograms were investigated. Dot size was varied in order to test the possibility that variations in the carrier dimension have contributed to past estimates of visual field differences. Twelve male and twelve female subjects, all right-handed, appeared for three test sessions—one with each different dot size. In each session the stimuli were flashed twenty-four times in each visual field, for 120 ms. Results showed no overall visual field effect, but a highly significant interaction between visual field and dot size. For small dots, left visual field superiority was observed, as previously reported by Durnford and Kimura. With large dots, however, the right visual field was superior. This reversal of visual field differences as a function of dot size implies that there is no consistent cerebral hemispheric specialization for stereopsis or stereoscopic form recognition per se. Instead, it appears that there is relative hemispheric specialization for responding to the carrier of stereoscopic information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document