Target detection in one visual field in the presence or absence of stimuli in the contralateral field by right-and left-handed subjects

The effects of response mode and stimulus laterality on reaction time in a Sternberg task

“…However, this "agreement" is far from universal. Yund, Efron, and Nichols (1990) consistently find that spatial stimuli are recognized more accurately in the right visual field, whether or not stimuli are simultaneously presented in the opposite field. They account for the right visual field superiority via a serial scanning mechanism that tends to scan the right field first.…”

“…The similarity ofleft-and right-hand patterns is, however, consistent with the results ofYund et al (1990) and with the results of others who have used both error and reaction time measures with manual responses as indicants. Yund et al (1990) believe that preferential scanning of the right visual field could mask, or even reverse, right-hemisphere superiority when it exists. In their experiments, subjects do not know the visual field in which stimuli will appear (unilateral presentation) or in which field the probe stimulus will appear (bilateral presentation).…”

The effects of response mode and stimulus laterality on reaction time in a Sternberg task

“…However, this "agreement" is far from universal. Yund, Efron, and Nichols (1990) consistently find that spatial stimuli are recognized more accurately in the right visual field, whether or not stimuli are simultaneously presented in the opposite field. They account for the right visual field superiority via a serial scanning mechanism that tends to scan the right field first.…”

“…The similarity ofleft-and right-hand patterns is, however, consistent with the results ofYund et al (1990) and with the results of others who have used both error and reaction time measures with manual responses as indicants. Yund et al (1990) believe that preferential scanning of the right visual field could mask, or even reverse, right-hemisphere superiority when it exists. In their experiments, subjects do not know the visual field in which stimuli will appear (unilateral presentation) or in which field the probe stimulus will appear (bilateral presentation).…”

Attentional factors in visual field asymmetries.

“…Sergent (1983), for example, has argued that the left hemisphere may be specialized for processing high spatial frequency information and the right hemisphere may be specialized for processing low spatial frequency information. Such an effect might suggest that the detection advantages for stimuli in the RVF reported by Efron et al (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and by Yund et al (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) are due not to a perceptual scan but, rather, to a functional hemispheric asymmetry for processing spatial frequency gratings. In other words, if the scan begins half the time in RVF and half the time in the LVF, then a detection advantage for the stimuli in the RVF might be obtained simply because of a left-hemisphere advantage for processing the high spatial frequencies present in the target and distractors used by the Efron group.…”

“…Efron, Yund, and Nichols; (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and Yund, Efron and Nichols (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) published a provocative series of papers wherein they attempted to determine the extent to which target detactability is a function of visual field and retinal location. Most of their experiments relied on the tachistoscopic presentation (50 ms) of either one or more rings of several small squares differing in spatial frequency, texture, and pattern orientation concentric around a central fixation point.…”

“…Second, Efron et al (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and Yund et al (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) primarily used multiple element displays in their experiments — a very different situation than the usual tachistoscopic experiments wherein only one or two stimuli are presented on a trial. Thus, it seems logical to expect that the magnitude of the visual field detection differences obtained from multiple element displays substantially overestimates the effect this scan would have on visual field differences for single element displays.…”

The effects of response mode and stimulus laterality on reaction time in a Sternberg task

“…However, this "agreement" is far from universal. Yund, Efron, and Nichols (1990) consistently find that spatial stimuli are recognized more accurately in the right visual field, whether or not stimuli are simultaneously presented in the opposite field. They account for the right visual field superiority via a serial scanning mechanism that tends to scan the right field first.…”

“…The similarity ofleft-and right-hand patterns is, however, consistent with the results ofYund et al (1990) and with the results of others who have used both error and reaction time measures with manual responses as indicants. Yund et al (1990) believe that preferential scanning of the right visual field could mask, or even reverse, right-hemisphere superiority when it exists. In their experiments, subjects do not know the visual field in which stimuli will appear (unilateral presentation) or in which field the probe stimulus will appear (bilateral presentation).…”

Attentional factors in visual field asymmetries.

“…Sergent (1983), for example, has argued that the left hemisphere may be specialized for processing high spatial frequency information and the right hemisphere may be specialized for processing low spatial frequency information. Such an effect might suggest that the detection advantages for stimuli in the RVF reported by Efron et al (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and by Yund et al (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) are due not to a perceptual scan but, rather, to a functional hemispheric asymmetry for processing spatial frequency gratings. In other words, if the scan begins half the time in RVF and half the time in the LVF, then a detection advantage for the stimuli in the RVF might be obtained simply because of a left-hemisphere advantage for processing the high spatial frequencies present in the target and distractors used by the Efron group.…”

“…Efron, Yund, and Nichols; (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and Yund, Efron and Nichols (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) published a provocative series of papers wherein they attempted to determine the extent to which target detactability is a function of visual field and retinal location. Most of their experiments relied on the tachistoscopic presentation (50 ms) of either one or more rings of several small squares differing in spatial frequency, texture, and pattern orientation concentric around a central fixation point.…”

“…Second, Efron et al (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and Yund et al (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) primarily used multiple element displays in their experiments — a very different situation than the usual tachistoscopic experiments wherein only one or two stimuli are presented on a trial. Thus, it seems logical to expect that the magnitude of the visual field detection differences obtained from multiple element displays substantially overestimates the effect this scan would have on visual field differences for single element displays.…”

The effects of response mode and stimulus laterality on reaction time in a Sternberg task

“…However, this "agreement" is far from universal. Yund, Efron, and Nichols (1990) consistently find that spatial stimuli are recognized more accurately in the right visual field, whether or not stimuli are simultaneously presented in the opposite field. They account for the right visual field superiority via a serial scanning mechanism that tends to scan the right field first.…”

“…The similarity ofleft-and right-hand patterns is, however, consistent with the results ofYund et al (1990) and with the results of others who have used both error and reaction time measures with manual responses as indicants. Yund et al (1990) believe that preferential scanning of the right visual field could mask, or even reverse, right-hemisphere superiority when it exists. In their experiments, subjects do not know the visual field in which stimuli will appear (unilateral presentation) or in which field the probe stimulus will appear (bilateral presentation).…”

Attentional factors in visual field asymmetries.

“…Sergent (1983), for example, has argued that the left hemisphere may be specialized for processing high spatial frequency information and the right hemisphere may be specialized for processing low spatial frequency information. Such an effect might suggest that the detection advantages for stimuli in the RVF reported by Efron et al (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and by Yund et al (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) are due not to a perceptual scan but, rather, to a functional hemispheric asymmetry for processing spatial frequency gratings. In other words, if the scan begins half the time in RVF and half the time in the LVF, then a detection advantage for the stimuli in the RVF might be obtained simply because of a left-hemisphere advantage for processing the high spatial frequencies present in the target and distractors used by the Efron group.…”

“…Efron, Yund, and Nichols; (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and Yund, Efron and Nichols (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) published a provocative series of papers wherein they attempted to determine the extent to which target detactability is a function of visual field and retinal location. Most of their experiments relied on the tachistoscopic presentation (50 ms) of either one or more rings of several small squares differing in spatial frequency, texture, and pattern orientation concentric around a central fixation point.…”

“…Second, Efron et al (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and Yund et al (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) primarily used multiple element displays in their experiments — a very different situation than the usual tachistoscopic experiments wherein only one or two stimuli are presented on a trial. Thus, it seems logical to expect that the magnitude of the visual field detection differences obtained from multiple element displays substantially overestimates the effect this scan would have on visual field differences for single element displays.…”