Article

Hemispheric asymmetries for temporal information processing: transient detection versus sustained monitoring.

Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Brain and Cognition (Impact Factor: 2.68). 04/2008; 66(2):168-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2007.07.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study investigated functional differences in the processing of visual temporal information between the left and right hemispheres (LH and RH). Participants indicated whether or not a checkerboard pattern contained a temporal gap lasting between 10 and 40 ms. When the stimulus contained a temporal signal (i.e. a gap), responses were more accurate for the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH) than for the left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH). This RVF-LH advantage was larger for the shorter gap durations (Experiments 1 and 2), suggesting that the LH has finer temporal resolution than the RH, and is efficient for transient detection. In contrast, for noise trials (i.e. trial without temporal signals), there was a LVF-RH advantage. This LVF-RH advantage was observed when the entire stimulus duration was long (240 ms, Experiment 1), but was eliminated when the duration was short (120 ms, Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, where the gap was placed toward the end of the stimulus presentation, a LVF-RH advantage was found for noise trials whereas the RVF-LH advantage was eliminated for signal trials. It is likely that participants needed to monitor the stimulus for a longer period of time when the gap was absent (i.e. noise trials) or was placed toward the end of the presentation. The RH may therefore be more efficient in the sustained monitoring of visual temporal information whereas the LH is more efficient for transient detection.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Matia Okubo, Aug 15, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
115 Views
  • Source
    • "However , a recent fMRI study has reported a greater involvement of the left hemisphere in the processing of alerting cues (Fan, McCandliss, Fossella, Flombaum, & Posner, 2005). Some authors believe that this discrepancy may result from differential specialization of the hemispheres, i.e. superiority of the LH in phasic alertness and the RH in tonic alertness (Okubo & Nicholls, 2008; Posner, 2008). Nevertheless, the hypothesis of LH specialization in processing phasic or transient aspects of visual events, which underlies the notion of LH advantage in phasic alertness (cf. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the fact that hemispheric asymmetry of attention has been widely studied, a clear picture of this complex phenomenon is still lacking. The aim of the present study was to provide an efficient and reliable measurement of potential hemispheric asymmetries of three attentional networks, i.e. alerting, orienting and executive attention. Participants (N=125) were tested with the Lateralized Attention Network Test (LANT) that allowed us to investigate the efficiency of the networks in both visual fields (VF). We found a LVF advantage when a target occurred in an unattended location, which seems to reflect right hemisphere superiority in control of the reorienting of attention. Furthermore, a LVF advantage in conflict resolution was observed, which may indicate hemispheric asymmetry of the executive network. No VF effect for alerting was found. The results, consistent with the common notion of general right hemisphere dominance for attention, provide a more detailed account of hemispheric asymmetries of the attentional networks than previous studies using the LANT task.
    Brain and Cognition 04/2012; 79(2):117-28. DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.02.014 · 2.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Perceptual processing in the left and right visual fields depends on the spatiality of stimulus. Typically, spatial information is processed more precisely in the left visual field and non-spatial information in the right visual field (Boulinguez, Ferrois, & Graumer, 2003; Corballis, 2003; Corballis, Funnell, & Gazzaniga, 2002; Okubo & Nicholls, 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Perceptual asymmetry is one of the most important characteristics of our visual functioning. We carefully reviewed the scientific literature in order to examine such asymmetries, separating them into two major categories: within-visual field asymmetries and between-visual field asymmetries. We explain these asymmetries in terms of perceptual aspects or tasks, the what of the asymmetries; and in terms of underlying mechanisms, the why of the asymmetries. Tthe within-visual field asymmetries are fundamental to orientation, motion direction, and spatial frequency processing. between-visual field asymmetries have been reported for a wide range of perceptual phenomena. foveal dominance over the periphery, in particular, has been prominent for visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and colour discrimination. Tthis also holds true for object or face recognition and reading performance. upper-lower visual field asymmetries in favour of the lower have been demonstrated for temporal and contrast sensitivities, visual acuity, spatial resolution, orientation, hue and motion processing. Iin contrast, the upper field advantages have been seen in visual search, apparent size, and object recognition tasks. left-right visual field asymmetries include the left field dominance in spatial (e.g., orientation) processing and the right field dominance in non-spatial (e.g., temporal) processing. left field is also better at low spatial frequency or global and coordinate spatial processing, whereas the right field is better at high spatial frequency or local and categorical spatial processing. All these asymmetries have inborn neural/physiological origins, the primary why, but can be also susceptible to visual experience, the critical why (promotes or blocks the asymmetries by altering neural functions).
    Advances in Cognitive Psychology 12/2010; 6:103-15. DOI:10.2478/v10053-008-0080-6
Show more