Hemispheric specialization and independence for word recognition: A comparison of three computational models☆

Weems, Scott A.; Reggia, James A.

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.02.001

Cited by 22 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, a widely available task might help to account for the question as 25 to whether the degree of lateralization in the LDT task is actually related to the degree of language lateralization and what factors might account for these visual field differences (Weems & Reggia, 2004) In sum, we report on lateralized performance (accuracy, reaction times, signal detection measures) gathered from a LDT using an "international" vocabulary (words existing in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of right visual field advantage in an international lateralized lexical decision task irrespective of participants’ sex, handedness or bilingualism

Willemin

Hausmann

Brysbaert³

et al. 2016

Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Willemin, J., Hausmann, M., Brysbaert, M., Dael, N., Chmetz, F., Fioravera, A., Gieruc, K., Mohr, C. (2016). Stability of right visual field advantage in an international lateralized lexical decision task irrespective of participants' sex, handedness or bilingualis. AbstractIn lateralized lexical decision tasks, accuracy is higher and reaction times are faster for right visual field (RVF) than left visual field (LVF) presentations. Visual field differences are thought to demonstrate the left hemisphere's dominance for language.The use of different tasks and words between studies and languages make direct comparisons difficult. We performed a lateralized lexical decision task for which we selected 4-6 letter words that are used in three languages of Switzerland (French, German, and Italian) and English and Dutch. We accounted for the potential moderating roles of sex, handedness, and multilingualism (early acquisition versus late acquisition of at least one second language). One hundred participants were tested at a French-speaking University in Switzerland. All performed a French vocabulary knowledge task (Brysbaert, 2013). Results showed a RVF over LVF advantage (accuracy, reaction times, signal detection theory measures) for all groups, i.e. irrespective of participants' sex, handedness and how many languages they spoke. We observed, however, that enhanced vocabulary knowledge related to a right hemisphere shift in early bilinguals and a left hemisphere shift in late bilinguals. We discuss how the current observations can inform future studies suitable for the validation of the current task using an "international"vocabulary.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of right visual field advantage in an international lateralized lexical decision task irrespective of participants’ sex, handedness or bilingualism

Willemin

Hausmann

Brysbaert³

et al. 2016

Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the callosal relay model of functional hemispheric lateralization; Zaidel, 1987;Moscovitch, 1986) or RVF information is processed in the LH but less effectively than in the information from LVF in the RH (cf. direct access model; Weems & Reggia, 2004;Zaidel, 1987). Therefore, T2 is more often missed in the RVF than in the LVF.…”

Section: T2 Identification Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias for the Left Visual Field in Rapid Serial Visual Presentation: Effects of Additional Salient Cues Suggest a Critical Role of Attention

Śmigasiewicz

Asanowicz

Westphal

et al. 2015

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Everyday experience suggests that people are equally aware of stimuli in both hemifields. However, when two streams of stimuli are rapidly presented left and right, the second target (T2) is better identified in the left hemifield than in the right hemifield. This left visual field (LVF) advantage may result from differences between hemifields in attracting attention. Therefore, we introduced a visual cue shortly before T2 onset to draw attention to one stream. Thus, to identify T2, attention was correctly positioned with valid cues but had to be redirected to the other stream with invalid ones. If the LVF advantage is caused by differences between hemifields in attracting attention, invalid cues should increase, and valid cues should reduce the LVF advantage as compared with neutral cues. This prediction was confirmed. ERP analysis revealed that cues evoked an early posterior negativity, confirming that attention was attracted by the cue. This negativity was earlier with cues in the LVF, which suggests that responses to salient events are faster in the right hemisphere than in the left hemisphere. Valid cues speeded up, and invalid cues delayed T2-evoked N2pc; in addition, valid cues enlarged T2-evoked P3. After N2pc, right-side T2 evoked more sustained contralateral negativity than left T2, least long-lasting after valid cues. Difficulties in identifying invalidly cued right T2 were reflected in prematurely ending P3 waveforms. Overall, these data provide evidence that the LVF advantage is because of different abilities of the hemispheres in shifting attention to relevant events in their contralateral hemifield.

show abstract

“…The gain of performance (bilateral > unilateral) is called “bilateral gain” (BG) and represents behavioral evidence for the inter-hemispheric cooperation (Zaidel and Rayman, 1994; Mohr et al, 1996; Hasbrooke and Chiarello, 1998; Weissman and Banich, 2000). Cooperation between hemispheres is based on anatomical structures connecting both hemispheres such as with the corpus callosum (Weems and Reggia, 2004; Stephan et al, 2005). Indeed, the BG is not obtained in split-brain patients (Mohr et al, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral evidence for inter-hemispheric cooperation during a lexical decision task: a divided visual field experiment

Perrone‐Bertolotti¹,

Lemonnier²,

Baciu³

2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HIGHLIGHTS The redundant bilateral visual presentation of verbal stimuli decreases asymmetry and increases the cooperation between the two hemispheres.The increased cooperation between the hemispheres is related to semantic information during lexical processing.The inter-hemispheric interaction is represented by both inhibition and cooperation.This study explores inter-hemispheric interaction (IHI) during a lexical decision task by using a behavioral approach, the bilateral presentation of stimuli within a divided visual field experiment. Previous studies have shown that compared to unilateral presentation, the bilateral redundant (BR) presentation decreases the inter-hemispheric asymmetry and facilitates the cooperation between hemispheres. However, it is still poorly understood which type of information facilitates this cooperation. In the present study, verbal stimuli were presented unilaterally (left or right visual hemi-field successively) and bilaterally (left and right visual hemi-field simultaneously). Moreover, during the bilateral presentation of stimuli, we manipulated the relationship between target and distractors in order to specify the type of information which modulates the IHI. Thus, three types of information were manipulated: perceptual, semantic, and decisional, respectively named pre-lexical, lexical and post-lexical processing. Our results revealed left hemisphere (LH) lateralization during the lexical decision task. In terms of inter-hemisphere interaction, the perceptual and decision-making information increased the inter-hemispheric asymmetry, suggesting the inhibition of one hemisphere upon the other. In contrast, semantic information decreased the inter-hemispheric asymmetry, suggesting cooperation between the hemispheres. We discussed our results according to current models of IHI and concluded that cerebral hemispheres interact and communicate according to various excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms, all which depend on specific processes and various levels of word processing.

show abstract

Hemispheric specialization and independence for word recognition: A comparison of three computational models☆

Cited by 22 publications

References 61 publications

Stability of right visual field advantage in an international lateralized lexical decision task irrespective of participants’ sex, handedness or bilingualism

Stability of right visual field advantage in an international lateralized lexical decision task irrespective of participants’ sex, handedness or bilingualism

Bias for the Left Visual Field in Rapid Serial Visual Presentation: Effects of Additional Salient Cues Suggest a Critical Role of Attention

Behavioral evidence for inter-hemispheric cooperation during a lexical decision task: a divided visual field experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About