Asymmetric bias in perception of facial affect among Roman and Arabic script readers

Abstract

The asymmetric chimeric faces test is used frequently as an indicator of right hemisphere involvement in the perception of facial affect, as the test is considered free of linguistic elements. Much of the original research with the asymmetric chimeric faces test was conducted with subjects reading left-to-right Roman script, i.e., English. As readers of right-to-left scripts, such as Arabic, demonstrated a mixed or weak rightward bias in judgements of facial affect, the influence of habitual scanning direction was thought to intersect with laterality. We administered the asymmetric chimeric faces test to 1239 adults who represented a range of script experience, i.e., Roman script readers (English and French), Arabic readers, bidirectional readers of Roman and Arabic scripts, and illiterates. Our findings supported the hypothesis that the bias in facial affect judgement is rooted in laterality, but can be influenced by script direction. Specifically, right-handed readers of Roman script demonstrated the greatest mean leftward score, and mixed-handed Arabic script readers demonstrated the greatest mean rightward score. Biliterates showed a gradual shift in asymmetric perception, as their scores fell between those of Roman and Arabic script readers, basically distributed in the order expected by their handedness and most often used script. Illiterates, whose only directional influence was laterality, showed a slight leftward bias.

The perception of strabismus by children and adults

“…This phenomenon is consistent with studies showing that the left half-face (as seen by the exploring subject) is more informative because of direct processing by the right hemisphere [14]. Possibly, this bias towards the left hemifield in face recognition can also partly be explained by the fact that Roman script is written from left to right, which influences the perception of our subjects [4]. If this finding can be confirmed by others, squinting patients able to alternate should be advised to look with their right eye.…”

Alcohol attention bias in adolescent social drinkers: an eye tracking study

“…One possibility for this is left gaze bias. To date a strong literature base supports the presence of left gaze bias when examining studies of facial perception and reading direction (Guo, Smith, Powell & Nicholls, 2012;Heath, Rouhana & Ghanem, 2005) whereas evidence appears to be less clear in relation to viewing pictures (Leonards & Scott-Samuel, 2005). Left gaze bias has not been addressed in AB research to date, possibly due to the absence of AB studies in non-clinical populations.…”

On the optimal viewing position for object processing

“…For example, reading direction influences how observers scan faces: Left-to-right readers show a leftward bias, whereas right-to-left readers show a rightward bias (Heath, Rouhana, & Abi Ghanem, 2005;Hsiao & Cottrell, 2008;Vaid & Singh, 1989). Thus, due to either hemispheric dominance or reading habits, (I-)OVP effects in objects might be asymmetric for objects, just as they are for words.…”

“…As outlined in the Introduction, several explanations have been proposed for the leftward bias in word processing: reading habits (Nazir et al, 2004), hemispheric specialization (Brysbaert, 1994), and word ambiguity (Clark & O'Regan, 1999). Some indirect evidence suggests that two of these mechanisms, hemispheric specialization and reading habits, might transfer to object processing: Object naming benefits from a right-visual field advantage (Hunter & Brysbaert, 2008), and reading habits have been found to generalize to face viewing (Heath et al, 2005;Hsiao & Cottrell, 2008;Vaid & Singh, 1989). This could have favored a leftward asymmetry of (I-)OVP curves in objects.…”