Normal readers have an upper visual field advantage in change detection

Rutkowski, Jacqueline S.; Crewther, David P.

doi:10.1046/j.1442-9071.2002.00509.x

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…V6A) are strongly devoted to LVF (Galletti, Fattori, Kuntz, & Gamberi, 1999). However, both visual search in normal adults (Christman & Niebauer, 1997) and change detection in normal-reading children (Rutkowski, Crewther, & Crewther, 2002) show an upper visual field (UpVF) advantage, presumably indicative of ventral pathway requirements for these tasks. The reading age of some of the normal reading children had already been assessed by the Reading Progress Test (Vincent, Sadowsky, Saunders, & Reeves, 1977).…”

Section: Visual Field Biases and Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A group of children with normal reading skills for age (NR) was used, chronologically agematched to the (DD) group. Preliminary data on the visual field preferences for change detection of 61 children with reading skill commensurate with age (across the range 7 -13 years) have previously been published (Rutkowski et al, 2002) Figure 1. Experimental stimuli.…”

Section: Visual Field Biases and Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Change detection is impaired in children with dyslexia

Rutkowski

Crewther

2003

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The severe deficits in rapid automatized naming demonstrated by children with developmental dyslexia has usually been interpreted in terms of a deficit in speed of access to the lexicon rather than as a possible deficit in speed of visual object recognition. Yet fluent reading requires rapid visual recognition and semantic interpretation of new letters and words appearing in successive fixations of the eyes. Thus we wondered whether change detection performance was related to reading ability. We investigated whether children with developmental dyslexia (DD) were less able to detect change in a simple display--gap--display paradigm than normal reading (NR) children of the same age and children with impaired reading and mentation (LD). In a first experimental phase, the DDs required a longer initial exposure of four letter items in order to detect change of a single letter at a level of 71% correct, compared with NRs performing at the same level. Thus the deficit in reading in DD is associated with a deficit in early processes associated with visual recognition. In a second experimental phase (using the individual target display exposures measured in the first phase), cues appeared during the 250 ms gap for a period of either 0 (no cue), 50 or 200 ms immediately prior to the presentation of the second (comparison) display. Children of all groups showed dependence on the presence of the cue to help make a judgement of change (versus no change), with the NRs least affected. When change was detected in the presence of a cue, the NRs were better able to identify the new letter than either of the other groups. However, only about 50% of the correct detections were accompanied by a correct identification. Despite published reports of a mini-neglect for left visual field in dyslexic adults, none of our groups showed such an effect. However, a significant upper visual field (UpVF) advantage in change detection performance was found across groups, which we interpret in terms of the interactions of the ventral and dorsal streams.

show abstract

Section: Visual Field Biases and Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Visual Field Biases and Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change detection is impaired in children with dyslexia

Rutkowski

Crewther

2003

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Danckert and Goodale stated, "the specialization for the visual control of action may also be reflected in the fact that the control of skilled actions is more efficient in peripersonal space" (p. 56). Whereas studies have reported observations of children's visual search ability with tasks such as reading and found no distinct age-related differences (e.g., Rutkowski et al, 2002Rutkowski et al, , 2003, to our knowledge, the present study is the first to address visual field presentation and motor planning for reach actions in children. Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] The present experiment examined the age-related ability to use motor imagery to estimate reachability in different visual fields.…”

mentioning

confidence: 51%

“…Research findings suggest that the UpVF, which is linked more with the ventral stream, has a special role in object identification, scene parsing, and complex visual search (Christman & Niebauer, 1997;Previc, 1990Previc, , 1998Previc & Naegele, 2001;Rutkowski, Crewther, & Crewther, 2002; in essence, visuospatial (perceptual) qualities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Visual Field Presentation on Action Planning (Estimating Reach) In Children

Gabbard

Cordova

2012

The Journal of Genetic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the authors examined the effects of target information presented in different visual fields (lower, upper, central) on estimates of reach via use of motor imagery in children (5-11 years old) and young adults. Results indicated an advantage for estimating reach movements for targets placed in lower visual field (LoVF), with all groups having greater difficulty in the upper visual field (UpVF) condition, especially 5- and 7-year-olds. Complementing these results was an overall age-related increase in accuracy. Based in part on the equivalence hypothesis suggesting that motor imagery and motor planning and execution are similar, the findings support previous work of executed behaviors showing that there is a LoVF bias for motor skill actions of the hand. Given that previous research hints that the UpVF may be bias for visuospatial (perceptual) qualities, research in that area and its association with visuomotor processing (LoVF) should be considered.

show abstract

“…On the basis of earlier psychophysical results indicating an upper visual field advantage for change detection (Rutkowski et al, 2002; evidence was sought for UVF versus LVF physiological response differences. Inspection of the individual responses at peripheral location it was clear that less 24/7/19 signal to noise was obtained as one stimulated into the periphery.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Dyslexic children show altered temporal structure of the nonlinear VEP

Rutkowski

Crewther

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural basis of dyslexia remains unresolved, despite many theories relating dyslexia to dysfunction in visual magnocellular and auditory temporal processing, cerebellar dysfunction, attentional deficits, as well as excessive neural noise. Recent research identifies perceptual speed as a common factor, integrating several of these systems. Optimal perceptual speed invokes transient attention as a necessary component, and change detection in gap paradigm tasks is impaired in those with dyslexia. This research has also identified an overall better change detection for targets presented in the upper compared with lower visual fields. Despite the magnocellular visual pathway being implicated in the aetiology of dyslexia over 30 years ago, objective physiological measures have been lacking. Thus, we employed nonlinear visual evoked potential (VEP) techniques which generate second order kernel terms specific for magno and parvocellular processing as a means to assessing the physiological status of poor readers (PR, n=12) compared with good readers (GR, n=16) selected from children with a mean age of 10yr. The first and second order Wiener kernels using multifocal VEP were recorded from a 4° foveal stimulus patch as well as for upper and lower visual field peripheral arcs. Foveal responses showed little difference between GR and PR for low contrast stimulation, except for the second slice of the second order kernel where lower peak amplitudes were recorded for PR vs GR. At high contrast, there was a trend to smaller first order kernel amplitudes for short latency peaks of the PR vs GR. In addition, there were significant latency differences for the first negativity in the first two slices of the second order kernel. In terms of peripheral stimulation, lower visual field response amplitudes were larger compared with upper visual field responses, for both PR and GR. A trend to larger second/first order ratio for magnocellularly driven responses suggests the possibility of lesser neural efficiency in the periphery for the PR compared with the GR. Stronger lower field peripheral response may relate to better upper visual field change detection performance when target visibility is controlled through flicking masks. In conclusion, early cortical magnocellular processing at low contrast was normal in those with dyslexia, while cortical activity related to parvocellular afferents was reduced. In addition, the study demonstrated a physiological basis for upper versus lower visual field differences related to magnocellular function.

show abstract

Normal readers have an upper visual field advantage in change detection

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

Change detection is impaired in children with dyslexia

Change detection is impaired in children with dyslexia

Effect of Visual Field Presentation on Action Planning (Estimating Reach) In Children

Dyslexic children show altered temporal structure of the nonlinear VEP

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About