Eye dominance influences triggering action: The Poffenberger paradigm revisited

Chaumillon, Romain; Blouin, Jean; Guillaume, A.

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2014.05.009

Cited by 27 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, subjects with right eye dominance showed shorter reaction time with their left hand, and vice versa, in covert spatial attention [Azemar, 2003;Nougier et al, 1990]. In the same line, a recent psychometric study described a significant advantage in manual reaction time in response to a lateralized visual target, whatever the stimulated hemifield, for the left-hand in left-handers with right dominant eye [Chaumillon et al, 2014]. Our results suggest that the dorsal attentional network would be the neural basis of such an advantage at least in the right hemisphere of sLH/ RE subjects.…”

Section: The Manipulo-spatial Hypothesis Supported By the Hs Of The Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strong rightward lateralization of the dorsal attentional network in left‐handers with right sighting‐eye: An evolutionary advantage

Petit

Zago

Mellet

et al. 2014

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hemispheric lateralization for spatial attention and its relationships with manual preference strength and eye preference were studied in a sample of 293 healthy individuals balanced for manual preference. Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to map this large sample while performing visually guided saccadic eye movements. This activated a bilateral distributed cortico-subcortical network in which dorsal and ventral attentional/saccadic pathways elicited rightward asymmetrical activation depending on manual preference strength and sighting eye. While the ventral pathway showed a strong rightward asymmetry irrespective of both manual preference strength and eye preference, the dorsal frontoparietal network showed a robust rightward asymmetry in strongly left-handers, even more pronounced in left-handed subjects with a right sighting-eye. Our findings brings support to the hypothesis that the origin of the rightward hemispheric dominance for spatial attention may have a manipulo-spatial origin neither perceptual nor motor per se but rather reflecting a mechanism by which a spatial context is mapped onto the perceptual and motor activities, including the exploration of the spatial environment with eyes and hands. Within this context, strongly left-handers with a right sighting-eye may benefit from the advantage of having the same right hemispheric control of their dominant hand and visuospatial attention processing. We suggest that this phenomenon explains why left-handed right sighting-eye athletes can outperform their competitors in sporting duels and that the prehistoric and historical constancy of the left-handers ratio over the general population may relate in part on the hemispheric specialization of spatial attention.

show abstract

Section: The Manipulo-spatial Hypothesis Supported By the Hs Of The Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strong rightward lateralization of the dorsal attentional network in left‐handers with right sighting‐eye: An evolutionary advantage

Petit

Zago

Mellet

et al. 2014

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most studies investigating the CUD effect have been in vision (Jeeves, 1969; Bashore, 1981; Marzi et al, 1991; Pellicano et al, 2013; Chaumillon et al, 2014), with only a few investigating other sensory modalities such as touch (Muram and Carmon, 1972; Moscovitch and Smith, 1979; Schieppati et al, 1984; Kaluzny et al, 1994), audition (Elias et al, 2000; Böhr et al, 2007), and cross-modally (Tassinari and Campara, 1996). Fendrich et al (2004) directly investigated the CUD in vision and touch, showing that its magnitude is comparable in the two sensory modalities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, despite numerous studies on healthy subjects (Jeeves, 1969; Berlucchi et al, 1971; Tettamanti et al, 2002; Fendrich et al, 2004; Pellicano et al, 2013; Chaumillon et al, 2014) and patients (Volpe et al, 1982; Savazzi et al, 2008), it is unknown whether in the tactile modality the CUD is modulated as a function of the body part stimulated. In vision it has been shown that the CUD does not vary when either luminance (Forster and Corballis, 1998) or eccentricity (Berlucchi et al, 1971, 1995; Aglioti et al, 1991) is modulated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-hemispheric integration of tactile-motor responses across body parts

Tamè

Longo

2015

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In simple detection tasks, reaction times (RTs) are faster when stimuli are presented to the visual field or side of the body ipsilateral to the body part used to respond. This advantage, the crossed-uncrossed difference (CUD), is thought to reflect inter-hemispheric interactions needed for sensorimotor information to be integrated between the two cerebral hemispheres. However, it is unknown whether the tactile CUD is invariant when different body parts are stimulated. The most likely structure mediating such processing is thought to be the corpus callosum (CC). Neurophysiological studies have shown that there are denser callosal connections between regions that represent proximal parts of the body near the body midline and more sparse connections for regions representing distal extremities. Therefore, if the information transfer between the two hemispheres is affected by the density of callosal connections, stimuli presented on more distal regions of the body should produce a greater CUD compared to stimuli presented on more proximal regions. This is because interhemispheric transfer of information from regions with sparse callosal connections will be less efficient, and hence slower. Here, we investigated whether the CUD is modulated as a function of the different body parts stimulated by presenting tactile stimuli unpredictably on body parts at different distances from the body midline (i.e., Middle Finger, Forearm, or Forehead of each side of the body). Participants detected the stimulus and responded as fast as possible using either their left or right foot. Results showed that the magnitude of the CUD was larger on the finger (~2.6 ms) and forearm (~1.8 ms) than on the forehead (≃0.9 ms). This result suggests that the interhemispheric transfer of tactile stimuli varies as a function of the strength of callosal connections of the body parts.

show abstract

“…Recently, whether such a relationship could lead to differences in the visuomotor processing of information from the hemifield ipsilateral or contralateral to DE has been examined. 7 Using the Poffenberger paradigm (manual response to a target presented either in the left or right hemifield, using either the right or left hand 8 ), participants exhibited faster reaction times when the target was presented in the hemifield contralateral to the DE than in the ipsilateral hemifield. 7 The investigators suggest that this advantage of the hemifield contralateral to the DE over the ipsilateral hemifield is linked to the relationship between DE and ipsilateral V1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Using the Poffenberger paradigm (manual response to a target presented either in the left or right hemifield, using either the right or left hand 8 ), participants exhibited faster reaction times when the target was presented in the hemifield contralateral to the DE than in the ipsilateral hemifield. 7 The investigators suggest that this advantage of the hemifield contralateral to the DE over the ipsilateral hemifield is linked to the relationship between DE and ipsilateral V1. Indeed, this relationship would lead to a better perceptual processing in the hemifield contralateral than ipsilateral to the DE.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%