Asymmetrical perceptual load in lateralised word processing

Madrid, Gaston; Lavie, Nilli; Lavidor, Michal

doi:10.1080/09541440903264161

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Significant interaction between the visual hemifield and the target position reflects less efficient search in RVF as compared to LVF regardless of the string type. This result is inconsistent with the data obtained in many experiments (Ellis et al, 1988;Madrid et al, 2010), where shorter RT were found for lexical stimuli in RVF as compared to LVF. Nevertheless, in our experiment RVF demonstrated better accuracy as compared to LVF (regardless of the string type), so this result may be due to the speed-accuracy trade-off (Fitts, 1954): improving the response accuracy leads to speed reduction.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Taya, Adams, Graph, & Lavie, 2009;Lavie et al, 2009) and in clinical populations, such as neglect patients (Lavie & Robertson, 2001). Word-letter processing proved to be sensitive to the perceptual load (Madrid et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A recent study by Madrid, Lavie and Lavidor (2010) showed that the effect of lexicality on distractor processing in letter search task was stronger for words presented to the left compared to the right hemifield. According to N. Lavie's Perceptual Load Theory of attention (Lavie, 1995), the selection occurs earlier when the load is high and later when the load is low.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Visual Search for Letters in the Right vs. Left Visual Hemifields: The Role of Perceptual Load and Set

Gorbunova

Falikman

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to better understand interconnection of visual attention, word processing and visual field asymmetries. Three experiments investigated visual search for a prespecified letter in displays containing 6-letter words or nonwords placed 7 degrees left and right to the fixation, with a variable target letter position within word and nonword strings. In Experiment 1, two letter strings of the same type (either words or nonwords) were presented to both sides of the visual field. In Experiment 2, there was only one letter string presented right or left to the fixation. In Experiment 3, two letter strings presented to both sides of the visual field were of different type (one word and one nonword). RT and accuracy data were collected. The results of Experiment 1 provide evidence for serial search for a letter within a word in the left visual field (LVF) and within a nonword in the right visual field (RVF) and parallel search for a letter within a nonword in the LVF and within a word in the RVF. The results of Experiment 3 were similar except for serial search for words in RVF. In Experiment 2, where perceptual load was twice lower, the search within both types of letter strings in both hemifields was serial. These results demonstrate the influence of the perceptual load and readiness to process a certain type of letter string, on the observers' choice of search strategy. JEL Classification: Z.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual Search for Letters in the Right vs. Left Visual Hemifields: The Role of Perceptual Load and Set

Gorbunova

Falikman

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The observed difference in the effect size for the RVF and the LVF is, in turn, supported by the significant interaction between visual hemifield and target position, which reflects a steeper slope and thus a slower search in the RVF as compared to the LVF, regardless of string type. This result is inconsistent with the data obtained in many previous experiments ( Ellis et al, 1988 ; Madrid, Lavie, & Lavidor, 2010 ), where shorter RTs were found for lexical stimuli in the RVF as compared to the LVF. However, opposite visual field effects for targets on the 2nd and 5th position were revealed: For targets on the 2nd position, the RT was lower in the RVF compared to the LVF, whereas for targets on the 5th position, the opposite pattern was observed.…”

Section: Methodscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Visual Search for Letters in the Right Versus Left Visual Hemifields

Gorbunova

Falikman

2019

ACP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigated the relationships between attention, word processing, and visual field asymmetries. There is a discussion on whether each brain hemisphere possesses its own attentional resources and on how attention allocation depends on hemispheric lateralization of functions. We used stimuli with lateralized processing in an attentional task presented across the two visual hemifields. Three experiments investigated the visual search for a prespecified letter in displays containing words or nonwords, placed left and right to fixation, with a variable target letter position within the strings. In Experiment 1, two letter strings of the same type (words or nonwords) were presented to both visual hemifields. In Experiment 2, there was only one letter string presented right or left to fixation. In Experiment 3, two letter strings of different type were presented to both hemifields. Response times and accuracy data were collected. The results of Experiment 1 provide evidence for letter-by-letter search within a word in the left visual field (LVF), within a nonword in the right visual field (RVF), and for position-independent access to letters within a nonword in LVF and within a word in RVF. Experiment 3 produced similar results except for letter-by-letter search within words in RVF. In Experiment 2, for all types of letter strings in both hemifields, we observed the same letter-by-letter search. These results demonstrate that presence of stimuli in both one or two hemifields and the readiness to process a certain string type might contribute to the search for a letter within a letter string.

show abstract

“…In line with load theory predictions, the reduced perceptual load in the word conditions resulted in greater response competition effects from an irrelevant distractor letter in the periphery, even though the same number of letters were presented in both the word and nonword conditions (see also Madrid, Lavie, & Lavidor, 2010). …”

Section: Previous Research: Manipulations Of Perceptual Load That Invsupporting

confidence: 63%

Dilution: A theoretical burden or just load? A reply to Tsal and Benoni (2010).

Lavie

Torralbo

2010

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Load theory of attention proposes that distractor processing is reduced in tasks with high perceptual load that exhaust attentional capacity within task-relevant processing. In contrast, tasks of low perceptual load leave spare capacity that spills over, resulting in the perception of task-irrelevant, potentially distracting stimuli. Tsal and Benoni (2010) find that distractor response competition effects can be reduced under conditions with a high search set size but low perceptual load (due to a singleton color target). They claim that the usual effect of search set size on distractor processing is not due to attentional load but instead attribute this to lower level visual interference. Here, we propose an account for their findings within load theory. We argue that in tasks of low perceptual load but high set size, an irrelevant distractor competes with the search nontargets for remaining capacity. Thus, distractor processing is reduced under conditions in which the search nontargets receive the spillover of capacity instead of the irrelevant distractor. We report a new experiment testing this prediction. Our new results demonstrate that, when peripheral distractor processing is reduced, it is the search nontargets nearest to the target that are perceived instead. Our findings provide new evidence for the spare capacity spillover hypothesis made by load theory and rule out accounts in terms of lower level visual interference (or mere “dilution”) for cases of reduced distractor processing under low load in displays of high set size. We also discuss additional evidence that discounts the viability of Tsal and Benoni's dilution account as an alternative to perceptual load.

show abstract

Asymmetrical perceptual load in lateralised word processing

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

Visual Search for Letters in the Right vs. Left Visual Hemifields: The Role of Perceptual Load and Set

Visual Search for Letters in the Right vs. Left Visual Hemifields: The Role of Perceptual Load and Set

Visual Search for Letters in the Right Versus Left Visual Hemifields

Dilution: A theoretical burden or just load? A reply to Tsal and Benoni (2010).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About