Psychophysics of lateral tachistoscopic presentation

Kitterle, Frederick L.

doi:10.1016/0278-2626(86)90052-7

Cited by 42 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 167 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One possibility is to assume that simple detection occurs at a sensory level; therefore, hemispheric differences would arise only when some higher level processing of the input is required (e.g., discrimination, identification). Differences in hemispheric processing tend to occur in psychophysical tasks that require relatively extensive computation by the visual system (Christman, 1988;Cohen, 1982;Greenwood, Rotkin, Wilson, & Gazzaniga, 1980;Kitterle, 1986;Rose, 1983). Thus, if hemispheric differences depend on computational processes that monitor and compare the output of different spatial frequency channels, one might expect to find laterality effects in spatial frequency discrimination and identification tasks.…”

Section: Strategy 2: Simple Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Hemispheric differences are found in the identification, but not the detection, of low versus high spatial frequencies

Kitterle

Christman

Hellige

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The processing of sine-wave gratings presented to the left and right visual fields was examined in four experiments. Subjects were required either to detect the presence of a grating (Experiments 1 and 2) or to identify the spatial frequency of a grating (Experiments 3 and 4). Orthogonally to this, the stimuli were presented either at threshold levels of contrast (Experiments 1 and 3) or at suprathreshold levels (Experiments 2 and 4). Visual field and spatial frequency interacted when the task required identification of spatial frequency, but not when it required only stimulus detection. Regardless of contrast level (threshold, suprathreshold), high-frequency gratings were identified more readily in the right visual field (left hemisphere), whereas low-frequency gratings showed no visual field difference (Experiment 3) or were identified more readily in the left visual field (right hemisphere) (Experiment 4). Thus, hemispheric asymmetries in the processing of spatial frequencies depend on the task. These results support Sergent's (1982) spatial frequency hypothesis, but only when the computational demands of the task exceed those required for the simple detection of the stimuli.Perceptual characteristics of input, as well as cognitive characteristics of task, have been shown (by, e.g., Sergent & Hellige, 1986) to influence obtained patterns of cerebral asymmetry. Sergent (1982Sergent ( , 1983 proposed that the right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LH) is specialized for the perceptual processing of higher spatial frequencies, and that the left visual field/right hemisphere (LVF /RH) is specialized for the processing of lower spatial frequencies. Two general strategies, one involving complex stimuli and the other, simple stimuli, have been employed in testing this hypothesis, and each strategy will be discussed below in turn. Strategy 1: Complex StimuliFirst, some researchers have used complex stimuli (e.g., alphanumeric characters, faces) and have varied input characteristics (e.g., size, eccentricity, luminance, exposure duration) in order to vary the proportion of high and low frequencies in the input. When Christman (1989) reviewed such studies, he found moderate support for the spatial frequency hypothesis. However, the manipulations used in these studies have only crude and/or indirect effects on the spatial frequency content of the input, and thus they cannot be considered simple or straightforward manipulations of spatial frequency as opposed to other input variables (e.g., stimulus perceptibility; see Michimata & Hellige, 1987).In only four studies have quantitative forms of spatial filtering been employed to directly test the spatial frequency hypothesis. Sergent (1985) presented clear versus low-pass blurred faces and found, as predicted by the hypothesis, that low-pass blurring produced greater relative LH impairment. In a similar experiment, however, Sergent (1987) obtained an LH advantage with broad-pass faces and no hemispheric differences with low-pass faces. Christman (1990) used dioptric blur...

show abstract

Section: Strategy 2: Simple Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Hemispheric differences are found in the identification, but not the detection, of low versus high spatial frequencies

Kitterle

Christman

Hellige

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…RF size is correlated with spatial frequency tuning, which measures a neuron’s sensitivity to different spatial scales of variation in contrast (that is, areas of relative light and dark in the visual scene). Thus, selectivity for spatial frequency also varies across the visual field, and the visual system is most sensitive to higher spatial frequencies closer to the fovea 3–5 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional enhancement of spatial resolution: linking behavioural and neurophysiological evidence

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention allows us to select relevant sensory information for preferential processing. Behaviourally, it improves performance in various visual tasks. One prominent effect of attention is the modulation of performance in tasks that involve the visual system’s spatial resolution. Physiologically, attention modulates neuronal responses and alters the profile and position of receptive fields near the attended location. Here, we develop a hypothesis linking the behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. The proposed framework seeks to explain how these receptive field changes enhance the visual system’s effective spatial resolution and how the same mechanisms may also underlie attentional effects on the representation of spatial information.

show abstract

“…Sergent (1982) has argued that hemispheric asymmetries arise at this higher cognitive level and result from differences between the two cerebral hemispheres in the utilization of spatialfrequency information. The left hemisphere (LH) is hypothesized to be more efficient in the processing of high spatial frequencies, whereas the right hemisphere (RH) is hypothesized to be more efficient in the processing of low spatial frequencies (see Christman, 1989;Kitterle, 1986;Kitterle & Christman, 1991;Sergent, 1983Sergent, , 1987Sergent & Hellige, 1986, for reviews of this literature). This has come to be called the "spatial-frequency hypothesis."…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual field effects in the discrimination of sine-wave gratings

Kitterle

Selig

1991

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The time needed to deeide whether the second of two sueeessively presented sinusoidal gratings was of a higher or lower spatial frequeney than the first was measured for spatial frequeneies of 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 eyeles per degree (cpd) presented in either the left visual field (LVF) or right visual field (RVF). A LVF advantage was found for discriminating within the low-spatialfrequency range (i.e., 1 and 2 cpd), whereas a RVF advantage was found for discriminating within the high-spatial-frequeney range (i.e., 4-12 cpd), These findings support the eonclusion that hemispherie asymmetries in the processing of gratings arise when eomparisons are made between the output of spatial-frequeney ehannels.

show abstract

Psychophysics of lateral tachistoscopic presentation

Cited by 42 publications

References 167 publications

Hemispheric differences are found in the identification, but not the detection, of low versus high spatial frequencies

Hemispheric differences are found in the identification, but not the detection, of low versus high spatial frequencies

Attentional enhancement of spatial resolution: linking behavioural and neurophysiological evidence

Visual field effects in the discrimination of sine-wave gratings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About