Global-local interference modulated by communication between the hemispheres

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 128, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 283-308

  Weissman, Daniel H ^a   Banich, Marie T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL FUNCTION; NERVE CELL NETWORK; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; DOMINANCE, CEREBRAL; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL PROCESSES; NERVE NET; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0033191148     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.283     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Banich, M. T. (1995). Interhemispheric interaction: Mechanisms of unified processing. In F. L. Kitterle (Ed.), Hemispheric communication: Models and mechanisms (pp. 271-300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Banich, M. T. (1998). The missing link: The role of interhemispheric interaction in attentional processing. Brain and Cognition, 36, 128-157.
3. Banich, M. T., & Belger, A. (1990). Interhemispheric interaction: How do the hemispheres divide and conquer a task? Cortex, 26, 77-94.
4. Banich, M. T., Goering, S., Stolar, N., & Belger, A. (1990). Interhemispheric processing in left- and right-handers. International Journal of Neuroscience, 54, 197-208.
5. Banich, M. T., & Karol, D. L. (1992). The sum of the parts does not equal the whole: Evidence from bihemispheric processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 763-784.
6. Banich, M. T., & Passarotti, A. (1999). Interhemispheric interaction aids task performance under conditions of selective attention. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7. Banich, M. T., & Shenker, J. I. (1994a). Dissociations in memory for item identity and item frequency: Evidence from hemispheric interactions. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1179-1194.
8. Banich, M. T., & Shenker, J. I. (1994b). Investigations of interhemispheric processing: Methodological considerations. Neuropsychology, 8, 263-277.
9. Banich, M. T., Stolar, N., Heller, W., & Goldman, R. (1992). A deficit in right-hemisphere performance after induction of a depressed mood. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 5(1), 20-27.
10. Banich, M. T., & Weissman, D. H. (1997). [Interhemispheric interaction reduces global-local interference when the perceptual load to each hemisphere is equated]. Unpublished raw data.
11. Belger, A., & Banich, M. T. (1992). Interhemispheric interaction affected by computational complexity. Neuropsychologia, 30, 923-931.
12. Carusi, D., Weekes, N. Y., & Zaidel, E. (1997). Interhemispheric determinants of the consistency effect in hierarchical perception. Manuscript in preparation.
13. Chiarello, C., & Maxfield, L. (1994). Varieties of interhemispheric inhibition, or how to keep a good hemisphere down. Brain and Cognition, 30, 81-108.
14. Christman, S. (1995). Independence versus integration of right and left hemisphere processing: Effects of handedness. In F. L. Kitterle (Ed.), Hemispheric communication: Models and mechanisms (pp. 231-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Christman, S. (1999). Individual differences in Stroop and local-global processing: A possible role of interhemispheric interaction. Manuscript in preparation.
16. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332-361.
17. Cohen, J. D., Romero, R. D., Farah, M. J., & Servan-Schreiber, D. (1994). Mechanisms of spatial attention: The relation of macrostructure to microstructure in parietal neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 377-387.
18. Copeland, S. A., & Zaidel, E. (1996). Contributions to the bilateral distribution advantage [Abstract]. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2, 29.
19. Corbetta, M., Miezin, F. M., Shulman, G. L., & Petersen, S. E. (1993). A PET study of visuospatial attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 1202-1226.
20. Delis, D. C., Robertson, L. C., & Efron, R. (1986). Hemispheric specialization of memory for visual hierarchical stimuli. Neuropsychologia, 24, 205-214.
21. Deruelle, C., & Fagot, J. (1997). Hemispheric lateralization and global precedence effects in the processing of visual stimuli by humans and baboons (Papio papio). Laterality, 2, 233-246.
22. Eng, T. L., & Hellige, J. B. (1994). Hemispheric asymmetry for processing unpronounceable and pronounceable letter trigrams. Brain and Language, 46, 517-535.
23. Friedman, A., & Poison, M. C. (1981). Hemispheres as independent resource systems: Limited-capacity processing and cerebral specialization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1031-1058.
24. Hopkins, W. D. (1997). Hemispheric specialization for local and global processing of hierarchical visual stimuli in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Neuropsychologia, 35, 343-348.
25. Humphreys, B. W., Riddoch, M. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1985). Interactive processes in perceptual organization: Evidence from visual agnosia. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 301-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Kimchi, R. (1988). Selective attention to global and local levels in the comparison of hierarchical patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 43, 189-198.
27. Kimchi, R. (1992). Primacy of wholistic processing and global/ local paradigm: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 24-38.
28. Kimchi, R. (1994). The role of wholistic/configural properties versus global properties in visual form perception. Perception, 23, 489-504.
29. Kimchi, R., & Merhav, I. (1991). Hemispheric processing of global form, local form, and texture. Acta Psychologica, 76, 133-147.
30. Kimchi, R., & Palmer, S. E. (1985). Separability and integrality of global and local levels of hierarchical patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 673-688.
31. Knight, R. T., Hillyard, S. A., Woods, D. L., & Neville, S. J. (1981). The effects of frontal cortex lesions on event-related potentials during auditory selective attention. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 52, 571-582.
32. LaBerge, D. L. (1990). Attention. Psychological Science, 1, 156-162.
33. LaBerge, D. L., & Buchsbaum, M. S. (1990). Positron emission tomographic measurements of pulvinar activity during an attention task. The Journal of Neuroscience, 10, 613-619.
34. Lamb, M. R., & Robertson, L. C. (1988). The processing of hierarchical stimuli: Effects of retinal locus, locational uncertainty, and stimulus identity. Perception and Psychophysics, 44, 172-181.
35. Lamb, M. R., Robertson, L. C., & Knight, R. T. (1989). Effects of right and left temporal parietal lesions on the processing of global and local patterns in a selective attention task. Neuropsychologia, 27, 471-483.
36. Lamb, M. R., Robertson, L. C., & Knight, R. T. (1990). Component mechanisms underlying the processing of hierarchically organized patterns: Inferences from patients with unilateral cortical lesions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 471-483.
37. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.
38. Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 56, 183-197.
39. Levy, J., Heller, W., Banich, M. T., & Burton, L. A. (1983a). Are variations among right-handed individuals in perceptual asymmetries caused by characteristic arousal differences between hemispheres? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 329-359.
40. Levy, J., Heller, W., Banich, M. T., & Burton, L. A. (1983b). Asymmetry of perception in free-viewing of chimeric faces. Brain and Cognition, 2, 404-414.
41. Liederman, J. (1986). Subtraction in addition to addition: Dual task performance improves when tasks are presented to separate hemispheres. Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology, 8, 486-502.
42. Liederman, J., & Meehan, P. (1986). When is between-hemisphere division of labor advantageous? Neuropsychologia, 24, 863-874.
43. Luck, S. J., Hillyard, S. A., Mangun, G. R., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (1994). Independent attentional scanning in the separated hemispheres of split-brain patients. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 84-91.
44. Martin, M. (1979). Hemispheric specialization for local and global processing. Neuropsychologia, 17, 33-40.
45. Martinez, A., Moses, P., Frank, L., Buxton, R., Wong, E., & Stiles, J. (1997). Hemispheric asymmetries in global and local processing: Evidence from fMRI. Neuroreport, 8, 1685-1689.
46. McKeever, W. F., Seitz, K. S., Krutsch, A. J., & Van Eys, P. L. (1995). On language laterality in normal dextrals and sinistrals: Results from the bilateral object naming latency task. Neuropsychologia, 33, 1627-1635.
47. Mesulam, M. M. (1981). A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect. Annals of Neurology, 10, 309-325.
48. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.
49. Pardo, J. V., Pardo, P. J., Janer, K. W., & Raichle, M. E. (1990). The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 87, 256-259.
50. Passarotti, A., & Banich, M. T. (1999). A generalized role of interhemispheric interaction under attentionally-demanding conditions: Evidence from the auditory and tactile modalities. Manuscript in preparation.
51. Polster, M. R., & Rapcsak, S. Z. (1994). Hierarchical stimuli and hemispheric specialization: Two case studies. Cortex, 30, 487-497.
52. Posner, M. I., Inhoff, A. W., Friedrich, F. J., & Cohen, A. (1987). Isolating attentional systems: A cognitive-anatomical analysis. Psychobiology, 15, 107-121.
53. Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25-42.
54. Robertson, L. C., & Lamb, M. R. (1991). Neuropsychological contributions to theories of part/whole organization. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 299-330.
55. Robertson, L. C., Lamb, M. R., & Knight, R. T. (1988). Effects of lesions of temporal-parietal junction on perceptual and attentional processing in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 8, 3757-3769.
56. Robertson, L. C., Lamb, M. R., & Zaidel, E. (1993). Interhemispheric relations in processing hierarchical patterns: Evidence from normal and commissurotomized subjects. Neuropsychology. 7, 325-342.
57. Sergent, J. (1982). The cerebral balance of power: Confrontation or cooperation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 253-272.
58. Shenker, J. I., & Banich, M. T. (1999). The modulation of attentional capacity in the Stroop task by communication between the cerebral hemispheres. Manuscript submitted for publication.
59. Sohn, Y., Liederman, J., & Reinitz, M. T. (1996). Division of inputs between hemispheres eliminates illusory conjunctions. Neuropsychologia, 34, 1057-1068.
60. Sperry, R. W. (1974). Lateral specialization in the surgically separated hemispheres. In F. Schmitt & F. Worden (Eds.), The neurosciences: Third study program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Van Kleeck, M. H. (1989). Hemispheric differences in global versus local processing of hierarchical visual stimuli by normal subjects: New data and a meta-analysis of previous studies. Neuropsychologia, 27, 1165-1178.
62. Ward, L. M. (1982). Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 8, 562-581.
63. Weekes, N. Y., Carusi, D., & Zaidel, E. (1997). Interhemispheric relations in hierarchical perception: A second look. Neuropsychologia, 35, 37-44.
64. Weissman, D. H., Banich, M. T., & Puente, E. I. (1999). Interhemispheric processing and complex task performance: An exploration of the role played by an unbalanced distribution of inputs across the hemispheres. Manuscript submitted for publication.
65. Witelson, S. (1985). The brain connection: The corpus callosum is larger in left-handers. Science, 229, 665-668.
66. Zaidel, E., & Rayman, J. (1994). Interhemispheric control in the normal brain: Evidence from redundant bilateral presentations. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 477-504). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.