The effects of display and report order asymmetries on lateralized word recognition

Boles, David B.

doi:10.1016/0093-934x(85)90031-8

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, some studies wherein Hebrew or English words were presented in a vertical format still found a right visual field advantage (e.g., Barton, Goodglass, & Shai, 1965;Boles, 1985;Faust, Kravetz, & Babkoff, 1993), although the effect tended to be weaker than in the horizontal case and was sometimes not significant (Howell & Bryden, 1987). Reviewing the topic, Bradshaw, Nettleton, and Taylor (1981) concluded that word orientation does not seem to have much impact on visual field differences when single-syllable words are used (cf.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stimulus presentations were centered to the vertical midline. The items were presented for 175 ms with a minimum visual angle of 2.44°measured between the center of the fixation cross and the inner edge of the letter H (one of the widest letters), thus exceeding the angles used in other studies that had successfully demonstrated visual half field differences in lexical decision with vertical item orientations (Barton et al, 1965;Boles, 1985). Data analysis was performed as in Experiment 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dissociating Prelexical and Postlexical Processing of Affective Information in the Two Hemispheres: Effects of the Stimulus Presentation Format

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a lexical decision task, the authors investigated whether brain asymmetries in the detection of emotionally negative semantic associations arise only at a perceptually discriminative stage at which lexical analysis is accurate or can already be found at crude and incomplete levels of perceptual representation at which word-nonword discrimination is based solely on guessing. Emotionally negative and neutral items were presented near perceptual threshold in the left and right visual hemifields. Word-nonword discrimination performance as well as the bias to classify a stimulus as a ''word'' (whether or not it actually is a word) were assessed for a normal, horizontal stimulus presentation format (Experiment 1) and for an unusual, vertical presentation format (Experiment 2). Results show that while the two hemispheres are equally able to detect affective semantic associations at a prelexical processing stage (both experiments), the right hemisphere is superior at a postlexical, perceptually discriminative stage (Experiment 2). Moreover, the findings suggest that only an unusual, nonoverlearned stimulus presentation format allows adequate assessment of the right hemisphere's lexical-semantic skills. © 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociating Prelexical and Postlexical Processing of Affective Information in the Two Hemispheres: Effects of the Stimulus Presentation Format

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have used CRT monitors for lateralized vertical word presentation (Boles, 1985(Boles, , 1991Burgess & Simpson, 1988;Lambert & Beaumont, 1983;Parkin & West, 1985;Wexler & King, 1990). In a computer monitor with short persistence phosphor, the top of the stimulus can stop glowing long before the bottom has been written.…”

Section: Nonsimultaneity Of Stimulus Presentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing visual perception on conventional cabinet tachistoscopes and computer monitor tachistoscopes

Hutner

Duboff²,

Oscar‐Berman

et al. 1999

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer monitor-based tachistoscopes (using a cathode ray tube, CRT)and conventional tachistoscopes differ in experimental control over stimulus continuity, duration, and timing accuracy. This study evaluated the perception of visual stimuli presented with the two different types of devices. An experiment was conducted to compare recognition of visuospatial stimuli (random shapes) presented laterally and centrally in the visual fields for short exposure durations (14, 29, and 43 msec), first with one device and then with another. Results indicated that the subjects' error rates and laterality patterns were similar on both types of tachistoscopes. It was concluded that perception of visual stimuli presented as continuous images on a conventional tachistoscope may be equivalent to perception of visual stimuli presented as pulsating Images on a CRT. Further studies are needed using other types of visual materials to determine the range of visual stimuli for which both types of tachistoscopes measure equivalent perceptual processes.Tachistoscopic presentation ofvisual stimuli is an important technique used by psychologists to study cognitive and neuropsychological functions. Computer-based tachistoscopes using the computer's monitor for stimulus presentation have virtually replaced conventional cabinet and projection tachistoscopes as the means ofpresenting stimuli. However, due to the nature ofthe raster-scan cathode ray tube (CRT) display employed in most computer monitors, stimuli presented on those monitors have certain fundamental differences from those presented on conventional tachistoscopes. These differences may have particular implications for (I) studies employing brief exposure durations, (2) studies attempting to determine visual thresholds or critical interstimulus intervals, and (3) perceptuallaterality studies. The purpose ofthe present study was twofold. First, we sought to review the different properties ofthe two types oftachistoscopic presentation methods and to evaluate their limitations. Second, we determined experimentally the extent to which these differences would affect subjects' perception of stimuli that were presented centrally and in the lateral visual fields for brief exposure durations. TACHISTOSCOPIC PRESENTATION METHODS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS Artifacts of CRT ImagesThe image on a CRT consists of glowing regions of phosphor energized by electrons. In the raster-scan CRT used in most computer monitors, an electron beam (or group ofthree beams for most color monitors) scans the entire phosphor-coated screen in aseries ofparallellines that form the raster. The electron beam is tumed on, energizing the phosphor, when passing a point where the screen is to glow, and tumed off where it is to stay dark. This raster-scan process takes about 35 usec per line in a common video graphics array (VGA) monitor, completely refreshing the screen in about 13-17 msec, depending on the monitor and controller card in use.Typically, each point of energized phosphor glows for less than I msec. The raster s...

show abstract

“…Recognizing the need to provide subjects with further encouragement to fixate centrally, a number of researchers have used the indirect method of briefly presenting a single stimulus centrally, prior to or simultaneously with lateralized targets. Subjects are required to identify the central stimulus along with the lateralized targets on each trial (see, e.g., Boles, 1983Boles, , 1985Hellige, Taylor, & Eng, 1989;Luh & Levy, 1995;McKeever & Huling, 1971;Wagner & Harris, 1994). The logic underlying this approach is that, unless subjects are fixating centrally at the time of target presentation, they will be unable to report the centrally presented stimulus correctly.…”

Section: Techniques For Ensuring Central Fixationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ability to identify stimuli is likely to differ between subjects and throughout the experimental session as subjects become more practiced with the task (see, e.g., Wolford, Marchak, & Hughes, 1988). Attempts can be made to accommodate practice effects and the differential ability ofsubjects to identify stimuli by manipulating the luminance or presentation time of.fixalion stimuli independently oflateralized targets (see, e.g., Boles, 1983Boles, , 1985. However,even if one assumes that accurate report of fixation stimuli reflects the perceptibility of each fixated stimulus and not a correct guess of a noncentrally fixated stimulus, any changes made to the presentation parameters of centrally presented stimuli must be made retrospectively, on the basis of performance from previous trials.…”

Section: Techniques For Ensuring Central Fixationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing the benefits of eye-tracking devices in divided visual field studies of cerebral asymmetry

Patching

Jordan

1998

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of display and report order asymmetries on lateralized word recognition

Cited by 19 publications

References 32 publications

Dissociating Prelexical and Postlexical Processing of Affective Information in the Two Hemispheres: Effects of the Stimulus Presentation Format

Dissociating Prelexical and Postlexical Processing of Affective Information in the Two Hemispheres: Effects of the Stimulus Presentation Format

Comparing visual perception on conventional cabinet tachistoscopes and computer monitor tachistoscopes

Increasing the benefits of eye-tracking devices in divided visual field studies of cerebral asymmetry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About