No abstract

The present study investigated hemispheric asymmetries in the perception of positive and negative emotion. The moderating effect of depression on hemispheric asymmetries was also examined. Forty undergraduates were presented with happy and sad faces using a bilateral visual half-field design. Subjects were classified as depressed or nondepressed based on scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. For nondepressed subjects, a right hemisphere advantage emerged for the speed of processing open and close-mouth sad expressions. For depressed subjects a right hemisphere advantage emerged for the speed of processing open-mouth sad expressions. In addition, a right hemisphere advantage for accuracy in identifying sad expressions was found for all subjects. No visual field differences were found for processing happy expressions.There are currently two competing theories regarding hemispheric asymmetries in the perception of facial expressions. The dominant theory (right hemisphere theory) proposes that the right hemisphere is superior to the left hemisphere in the processing of all emotional expressions. The alternate theory, a valence-based theory, originated from studies of mood changes following unilateral brain damage (e.g., Gainotti, 1972) and predicts a right hemisphere advantage in the processing of negative expressions versus a left hemisphere advantage in the processing of positive expressions (Davidson, 1 Final version published in Brain and Cognition 32, 67-82 (1996).

It has been suggested that conjugate lateral eye movements (CLEM) are related to cerebral lateralization. Two types of research have developed: studies examining individual differences (hemisphericity) and studies examining the type of questions used to elicit eye movements (hemispheric specialization). In a 1978 review, Ehrlichman and Weinberger questioned the notion that CLEM is related to cerebral lateralization, particularly with regard to individual differences. However, since their review, a substantial number of studies have been published which are pertinent to the validity of CLEM. The following paper reviewed the validity of CLEM through three avenues, neurophysiological evidence, relationships with other measures of laterality and relation to spatial and verbal stimuli. Overall, it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the CLEM model. Converging evidence from studies on EEG, electrical stimulation, ablation, brain damage, sodium amytal testing, blood flow, positron emission tomography, dichotic listening, and visual half fields was found to be, for the most part, supportive. The results for verbal and spatial task performance were mixed. Studies examining verbal abilities or a verbal to spatial comparison were generally supportive. The findings for spatial abilities alone were more equivocal. Evidence on question-type was found to be weak but positive, with about half the studies showing the predicted asymmetry and the other half reporting nonsignificant results. The implications of an interaction between hemisphericity or characteristic arousal and hemispheric specialization were also discussed.

No abstract

A number of similar characteristics between creative and cognitively complex people suggests a positive relationship between these variables. However, past empirical research, using purported measures of creativity and cognitive complexity, has reported equivocal findings. The present study hypothesized a positive relationship between high creativity (How Do You Think Test) and cognitive complexity. The subjects were fifty-six female and fifty-six male university students. As predicted, cognitive complexity was significantly related to creativity. In addition, females were significantly more cognitively complex.