Evidence for different types of lexical representations in the cerebral hemispheres

Koenig, Olivier; Wetzel, Corinne; Caramazza, Alfonso

doi:10.1080/02643299208252051

Cited by 34 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with O'Regan and Jacobs's (1992) finding that the cost of not fixating the center of centrally presented target words was greater for LF words than for HF words. Furthermore, the absence of an interaction between word frequency and VF effects in the peripheral presentation conditions of Experiments 1 and 3 is consistent with the results reported by Iacoboni and Zaidel (1996), Koenig, Wetzel, and Caramazza (1992), and Coney (2005). All of these studies reported a clear additivity between VF effects and word frequency in lateralized presentation conditions.…”

Section: Spatial Attention Word Frequency and Lexicalitysupporting

confidence: 81%

Deployment of spatial attention to words in central and peripheral vision

Ducrot

Grainger

2007

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four perceptual identification experiments examined the influence of spatial cues on the recognition of words presented in central vision (with fixation on either the first or last letter of the target word) and in peripheral vision (displaced left or right of a central fixation point). Stimulus location had a strong effect on word identification accuracy in both central and peripheral vision, showing a strong right visual field superiority that did not depend on eccentricity. Valid spatial cues improved word identification for peripherally presented targets but were largely ineffective for centrally presented targets. Effects of spatial cuing interacted with visual field effects in Experiment 1, with valid cues reducing the right visual field superiority for peripherally located targets, but this interaction was shown to depend on the type of neutral cue. These results provide further support for the role of attentional factors in visual field asymmetries obtained with targets in peripheral vision but not with centrally presented targets.Reading is a complex process that involves extracting visual information from a currently fixated word while simultaneously preparing to extract information from peripherally located words in the text. Therefore, apart from the basic processes involved in extracting information from foveated visual stimuli, reading also involves managing eye movements and attentional resources in order to optimize information extraction across foveal and parafoveal vision. The present study examines the extent to which the appropriate allocation of spatial attention can facilitate word recognition and whether or not the allocation depends on eccentricity. First we review the main findings from past research involving the key manipulations of the present study: the effects of visual field (VF), viewing position (VP), and spatial cuing on visual word recognition.

show abstract

Section: Spatial Attention Word Frequency and Lexicalitysupporting

confidence: 81%

Deployment of spatial attention to words in central and peripheral vision

Ducrot

Grainger

2007

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, Emmorey and Zaidel (cited in Zaidel, 1989) contrasted lateralized presentations of four types of nonwords (simple, suffixed, root-initial, and morphologically decomposable) and found a RVFA for root-initial nonwords, a LVFA for suffixed nonwords, and no VFA for morphologically decomposable nonwords. By contrast, Koenig, Wetzel, and Caramazza (1992) found that morphologically complex nonwords (stem ϩ suffix) produce more errors that matched morphologically simple nonwords in the RVF but not in the LVF. They concluded that stems and suffixes are represented only in the LH, but their data were unusual in showing an overall nonword advantage in accuracy and no lateral differences in latency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Hemispheric Independence in Word Recognition: Evidence from Unilateral and Bilateral Presentations

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The morphological variability or complexity of verbs could mean a limitation to the contribution of the RH. In fact, there is evidence that one dimension along which the two hemispheres differ in their processing capability of lexical information is in terms of morphological structure: only the left hemisphere would seem able to process the morphological structure of words (Koenig, Wetzel, & Caramazza, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%