Related but different: Examining pseudoneglect in audition, touch and vision

Eardley, Alison F.; Darling, Stephen; Dumper, Paul; Browne, David; Velzen, Jose L. Van

doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2017.01.011

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research has shown that horizontal biases affect behavior (Chae and Hoegg 2013; Deng and Kahn 2009; Romero and Biswas 2016; for a table of relevant literature, see the Web Appendix). There is a natural tendency to pay more attention to the left (vs. right) side of space during visuospatial tasks (Eardley et al 2017), a tendency referred to as pseudoneglect. Because most people learn to read from left to right and are taught about magnitude using a number line that runs left to right, they exhibit a left-side-first processing bias.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Other Hand…: Enhancing Promotional Effectiveness with Haptic Cues

Maille¹,

Morrin²,

Reynolds-McIlnay³

2019

Journal of Marketing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People like graspable objects more when the objects are located on the dominant-hand side of their body or when the handles point toward their dominant-hand side. However, many products do not have handles or are not graspable (e.g., services, objects hanging on the wall). Can nongraspable products nevertheless benefit from the effects of appealing to viewers’ dominant hands? The present research shows that, yes, consumers respond more positively to nongraspable products if a haptic cue (an object that is graspable or suggestive of hand action) is located within the same visual field as the target and is positioned to appeal to the viewer’s dominant hand. This result is driven by the creation and transfer of perceived ownership from cue to target. These findings extend the use of haptic cues to nongraspable products and uncover the critical role played by perceived ownership, including its ability to transfer from one object to another located in the same visual field. Moreover, the current research demonstrates situations in which the use of haptic cues will not enhance response.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Other Hand…: Enhancing Promotional Effectiveness with Haptic Cues

Maille¹,

Morrin²,

Reynolds-McIlnay³

2019

Journal of Marketing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another example are tasks that are believed to find pseudoneglect when participants are required to detect objects in random search arrays (for a comprehensive review, e.g., [16]) or at one or two lateral positions [17–19], and with or without attentional cues ([20]; but see [21] for no lateralization effect of cueing). In addition, non-visual tasks such as perceptual judgments of tactile and auditory stimuli [3,22] as well as tests that probe mental representations and imagery ([23–31]; for a review: [32]) also produce left-biased performance, opposite to what is observed in neglect in similar experiments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately however, the different pseudoneglect paradigms are not statistically related with one another: Only a few studies report correlations between different visual ([10]; for some conditions: [14]) and non-visual measures of pseudoneglect [22, 44]. Most studies find non-significant correlations ([4, 9, 11–13, 45, 46]; one study even reported line bisection and the grating-scales task to be negatively correlated [45], note though that a suboptimal version of the latter task was used, also see Methods).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for a common mechanism of spatial attention and visual awareness: Towards construct validity of pseudoneglect

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Present knowledge of attention and awareness centres on deficits in patients with right brain damage who show severe forms of inattention to the left, called spatial neglect. Yet the functions that are lost in neglect are poorly understood. In healthy people, they might produce “pseudoneglect”—subtle biases to the left found in various tests that could complement the leftward deficits in neglect. But pseudoneglect measures are poorly correlated. Thus, it is unclear whether they reflect anything but distinct surface features of the tests. To probe for a common mechanism, here we asked whether visual noise, known to increase leftward biases in the grating-scales task, has comparable effects on other measures of pseudoneglect. We measured biases using three perceptual tasks that require judgments about size (landmark task), luminance (greyscales task) and spatial frequency (grating-scales task), as well as two visual search tasks that permitted serial and parallel search or parallel search alone. In each task, we randomly selected pixels of the stimuli and set them to random luminance values, much like a poor TV signal. We found that participants biased their perceptual judgments more to the left with increasing levels of noise, regardless of task. Also, noise amplified the difference between long and short lines in the landmark task. In contrast, biases during visual searches were not influenced by noise. Our data provide crucial evidence that different measures of perceptual pseudoneglect, but not exploratory pseudoneglect, share a common mechanism. It can be speculated that this common mechanism feeds into specific, right-dominant processes of global awareness involved in the integration of visual information across the two hemispheres.

show abstract