Hemiretinal effects in tachistoscopic letter recognition.

Do, Neill; Sampson, Harold; Ja, Gribben

doi:10.1037/h0031793

Cited by 16 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering identification studies that presented stimulus items to only one visual field on any given trial, verbal items are correctly identified more often when they are projected to the left than when they are projected to the right hemisphere. These verbal stimulus materials have included single letters (Bryden, 1965(Bryden, , 1966Bryden & Rainey, 1963;Hines, Satz, & Clementino, 1973;Kimura, 1966;McKeever & Gill, 1972b;WorraI & Coles, 1976), letter strings (Cohen, 1976;Fontenot, 1973;Fontenot & Benton, 1972;Hannay & Malone, 1976;Hilliard, 1973;Neil, Sampson, & Gribben, 1971;White, 1969White, , 1971, and words (Forgays, 1953;Mishkin & Forgays, 1952;McKeever & Huling, 1970;Orbach, 1953). Similar findings have been obtained when reaction time (RT) is used to measure hemispheric differences for speed of stimulus identification.…”

supporting

confidence: 55%

Hemispheric differences in stimulus identification

Polich

1978

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects were presented with either verbal (letters) or nonverbal (outline forms) stimuli to their left or right cerebral hemispheres. Verbal items presented with a lateral masking stimulus were identified more quickly and accurately when presented to the right hemisphere rather than to the left. When the letters were presented without a masking stimulus, weak hemispheric effects were obtained. Nonverbal forms demonstrated faster reaction time and fewer errors for right-hemisphere presentations under both masked and unmasked conditions. Retinal locus of the display item was also varied and produced faster responding with fewer errors when the stimulus was presented foveally rather than peripherally under all display conditions. These effects were attributed to the use of a manual response procedure that effectively reduced the ability of subjects to employ names for the stimulus objects.The usual paradigm for measuring hemispheric processing effects on the accuracy of stimulus identification consists of tachistoscopically presenting items in either the right or left visual field. If the subject is fixating on a central point and the stimulus is presented at an exposure duration of less than 250 msec, the item is projected to the hemisphere contralateral to the visual field in which it appears. The subject is then required to indicate, either verbally or by pointing to the test item from an array of possible items, what he saw. Considering identification studies that presented stimulus items to only one visual field on any given trial, verbal items are correctly identified more often when they are projected to the left than when they are projected to the right hemisphere. These verbal stimulus materials have included single letters (Bryden, 1965(Bryden, , 1966

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 55%

Hemispheric differences in stimulus identification

Polich

1978

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Effects attributable to the superiority of the crossed optic pathway are typically confined to situations in which the visual fields are competitively stimulated. In the noncompetitive situation, a more potent factor is the superiority of the temporal hemiretinae (Neill, Sampson, & Gribben, 1971). Since in the right eye such a disparity would confer an LVF-RH advantage, the present results cannot be explained in terms of differential hemiretinal sensitivity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 52%

Hemispheric differences in serial versus parallel processing.

Cohen¹

1973

Journal of Experimental Psychology

288

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined hemispheric differences in reaction time (RT) to judge a set of items same (all identical) or different (one item differing from the rest), as a function of number of items in the set. When the items were letters, the left hemisphere yielded RTs increasing with the number of letters in the set, as in serial processing; the right hemisphere showed no increase of RT for larger numbers of letters, as in parallel or holistic processing. When the items were unnameable shapes, both hemispheres appeared to process in parallel. Thus, a serial vs. parallel processing difference between left and right hemispheres appears to be limited to linguistic material which can be analyzed either verbally or visuospatially. If verbal analysis forces a. serial procedure, while visuospatial analysis permits parallel processing, then the results can be explained in terms of the lateralization of these modes of analysis.

show abstract

“…Thus, a left visual field (LVF) superiority is reported for bilaterally presented letter strings (Bryden, 1966(Bryden, , 1967Harcum, 1964;Heron, 1957;Scheerer, 1970); the earlier encountered items are less subject to decay. A right visual field (RVF) superiority is found with unilaterally presented items (Dornbush & Winnick, 1965;Heron, 1957;Neill, Sampson, & Gribben, 1971). In this case, direction of scan from the fixation point toward the first element and then onward to subsequent elements is always the same, to the right.…”

Section: Word Perception: Is the Single Letter Or The Letter Clustertmentioning

confidence: 80%

Three interrelated problems in reading: A review

Bradshaw

1975

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this review, three interrelated problems are discussed with respect to reading. The skilled S may recognize words not so much by a serial letter-by-letter analysis, but rather by some sort of interactive process permitting the extraction of higher order distinctive features. Some semantic information may be available from words beyond the one currently fixated, even though orthographic or phonological information is preconscious or rapidly lost. Finally, the accessing of meaning from the written representation may proceed directly, without any prior or intervening phonological stage. These conclusions are considered within the context of the possibly different aims of the reader at different times, the distinctions between easy and difficult material, and the experienced and tile novice reader. Implications for alternative coding systems, such as a syllabary, are discussed in terms of the roles of the phoneme and the syllable as fundamental units in speech perception.

show abstract

Hemiretinal effects in tachistoscopic letter recognition.

Cited by 16 publications

References 21 publications

Hemispheric differences in stimulus identification

Hemispheric differences in stimulus identification

Hemispheric differences in serial versus parallel processing.

Three interrelated problems in reading: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About