Theoretical analysis of interhemispheric transfer costs in visual word recognition

Abstract

It is becoming increasingly clear that interhemispheric transfer is an important factor in visual word recognition. One of the two computational models of visual word recognition that includes this aspect, the SERIOL model, is tested on the basis of recently obtained behavioural word naming data. Optimal viewing position (OVP) data were collected from participants with left hemisphere language dominance, right hemisphere language dominance, and bilateral language representation (as determined by fMRI). We employ a mathematical model, which is based on some of the underlying assumptions of SERIOL, to investigate the model's ability to predict our results. We show that this mathematical model, which makes use of the original parameters, is able to perfectly predict the differences in the OVP curves observed in the three groups of participants

What makes a word so attractive? Disclosing the urge to read while bisecting

“…Indeed, in the last decade, reading research has shifted its main focus of interest from lexical processing to early perceptual processing, which characterizes single word recognition (see Frost, for a recent review). Most single word recognition models have argued that letter‐position flexibility reflects general and basic brain mechanisms (e.g., neural temporal firing patterns across letter units, Whitney, ; noisy retinotopic firing, Dehaene, Cohen, Sigman, & Vinckier, ; split of foveal vision and interhemispheric transfer costs, Shillcock, Ellison, & Monaghan, ; Hunter & Brysbaert, ). The stress on letter‐order encoding constitutes a remarkable paradigm change as, by focusing almost exclusively on issues of letter sequence processing and on letter position, reading and visual word recognition research has shifted to theories of orthographic processing per se, some with the explicit aim of ‘cracking the orthographic code’ (Grainger, Dufau, & Ziegler, ; Grainger, Bertrand, Lété, Beyersmann, & Ziegler, ; Grainger, Dufau, et al ., ; see Grainger, , for a detailed discussion).…”

The Split Fovea Theory and the Leicester critique: What do the data say?

“…It also compares well with the estimate of 31 ms predicted by the SERIOL model of word recognition (Whitney, 2001). This model has been developed on the basis of the data reported in Brysbaert (1994a) and assumes a split fovea with a time cost for interhemispheric communication (see Hunter & Brysbaert, 2008a for a detailed calculation of the expected values and the application of the model to the Hunter et al, 2007, data). Now that we have the "traditional" OVP curve, we can assess the impact of the Leicester critiques.…”

“…Because precise assessment of language dominance requires fMRI testing of left-handed participants (Hunter & Brysbaert, 2008b), we limited our studies to right-handed individuals who in addition were right eye dominant (needed because we tracked the right eye). The default expectation for these participants is that they will be left hemisphere dominant and, indeed, none of our participants showed the flat curve typically observed in right dominant participants (Brysbaert, 1994a;Hunter et al, 2007;Hunter & Brysbaert, 2008a).…”

The role of orthographic neighbourhood effects in lateralized lexical decision: A replication study and meta-analysis.

“…right hemisphere) is typically longer than that for words presented in the RVF. This is known as the RVF advantage, and it is attributed to the additional time taken for transferring LVF information from the occipital cortex of the right hemisphere to the language dominant left hemisphere via the corpus callosum (Chiarello, 1985;Banich, 2003;Bourne, 2006;Bradshaw & Nettleton, 1983;Hellige, 1993;Krutsch & McKeever, 1990; see Hunter & Brysbaert, 2008, for a review of transfer costs). In addition to differences between the hemispheres in terms of the speed of word recognition, there are also proposed differences in orthographic processing.…”