Cortical representation of the fovea: Implications for visual half-field research

Cortex

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 111-117

  Lindell, Annukka K ^a   Nicholls, Michael E R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION; CONFERENCE PAPER; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; EXPERIMENTATION; EYE INJURY; HEMIANOPIA; HEMISPHERE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; ORGAN PRESERVATION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RETINA FOVEA; RETINA MACULA LUTEA; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0037326283     PISSN: 00109452     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70079-0     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. Anstis SM. A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position. Vision Research, 14: 589-592, 1974.
2. Balota DA and Rayner K. Word recognition processes in foveal and parafoveal vision: The range of influence of lexical variables. In D Besner and GW Humphreys (Eds), Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition. Lawrence Elrbaum Associates: Hillsdale N.J., 198-232, 1991.
3. Banich MT and Belger A. Interhemispheric interaction: How do the hemispheres divide and conquer a task? Cortex, 26: 77-94, 1990.
4. Bischoff P, Lang J and Huber A. Macular sparing as a perimetric artifact. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 119(1): 72-79, 1995.
5. Brandt T, Stephan T, Bense S, Yousry TA and Dieterich M. Hemifield visual motion stimulation: An example of interhemispheric crosstalk. Neuroreport, 11: 2803-2809, 2000.
6. Bryden MP and Mondor TA. Attentional factors in visual field asymmetries. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45: 427-442, 1992.
7. Brysbaert M. Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli. Behavioural Brain Research, 64: 151-161, 1994.
8. Brysbaert M, Vitu F and Schroyens W. The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition. Neuropsychology, 10: 385-395, 1996.
9. Bunt AH, Minckler DS and Johanson GW. Demonstration of bilateral projection of the central retina of the monkey with horseradish peroxidase neuronography. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 171: 619-630, 1977.
10. Diamond SJ and Beaumont G. Use of two cerebral hemispheres to increase brain capacity. Nature, 232: 270-271, 1971.
11. Fendrich R and Gazzaniga MS. Evidence of foveal splitting in a commissurotomy patient. Neuropsychologia, 27: 273-281, 1989.
12. Gray LG, Galetta SL, Siegal T and Schatz NJ. The central visual field in homonymous hemianopia: Evidence for unilateral foveal representation. Archives of Neurology, 54: 312-317, 1997.
13. Horton JC and Hoyt WF. The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex: A revision of the classic Holmes map. Archives of Ophthalmology, 109: 816-824, 1991.
14. Huber A. Homonymous hemianopia after occipital lobectomy. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 54: 623-629, 1962.
15. Kwantes PJ and Mewhort DJK. Letter encoding in visual word identification: More evidence for a word-integration explanation for parafoveal preview effects in reading. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, in press.
16. Lavidor M and Ellis AW. Interhemispheric integration of letter stimuli presented foveally or extra-foveally. Cortex, 39: 69-83, 2003.
17. Leventhal AG, Ault SJ and Vitek DJ. The nasotemporal division in primate retina: The neural bases of macular sparing and splitting. Science, 240: 66-67, 1988.
18. Lindell AK and Nicholls MER. Attentional deployment in visual half-field tasks: The effect of cue position on word naming latency. Brain and Cognition, in press.
19. Lindell AK, Nicholls MER and Castles AE. The effect of orthographic uniqueness and deviation points on lexical decisions: Evidence from unilateral and bilateral-redundant presentations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, in press.
20. Lines CR. Nasotemporal overlap investigated in a case of agenesis of the corpus callosum. Neuropsychogia, 22: 85-90, 1984.
21. Millodot M. Foveal and extra-foveal acuity with and without stabilized retinal image. British Journal of Physiology and Optics, 23: 75-83, 1966.
22. Mondor TA and Bryden MP. On the relation between visual spatial attention and visual field asymmetries. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A: 529-555, 1992.
23. Nicholls MER, Wood A and Hayes L. Cerebral asymmetries in the level of attention required for word recognition. Laterality, 6: 97-110, 2001.
24. Petit L, Dubois S, Tzourio N, Dejardin S, Crivello F, Michel C, Etard O, Denise P, Roucoux A and Mazoyer B. PET study of the human foveal fixation system. Human Brain Mapping, 8: 23-48, 1999.
25. Shillcock R, Ellison TM and Monaghan P. Eye-fixation behaviour, lexical storage and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychological Review, 107: 824-851, 2000.
26. Shillcock R, Monaghan P and Ellison TW. The SPLIT model of visual word recognition: Complementary connectionist and statistical cognitive modelling. In D Heinke, GW Humphreys and A Olson (Eds). Connectionist Models in Cognitive Neuroscience: The 5th Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop. London: Springer-Verlag, 1999, pp. 3-12.
27. Smith CG and Richardson WFG. The course and distribution of the arteries supplying the visual (striate) cortex. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 61: 1391-1396, 1966.
28. Sperry RW. Apposition of visual half-fields after section of neocortical commisures. The Anatomical Record, 160: 498-499, 1977.
29. Stone J. The naso-temporal division of the cat's retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 136: 585-600, 1966.
30. Stone J, Leicester J and Sherman SM. The naso-temporal division of the monkey's retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 150: 333-348, 1973.
31. Sugishita M, Hamilton CR, Sakuma I and Hemmi I. Hemispheric representation of the central retina of commissurotomized subjects. Neuropsychologia, 32: 399-413, 1994.
32. Tootell RBH, Mendola JD, Hadjikhani NK, Liu AK and Dale AM. The representation of the ipsilateral visual field in human cerebral cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95: 818-824, 1998.
33. Trauzettel-Klosinski S and Reinhard J. The vertical border in hemianopia and its significance for fixation and reading. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 39: 2177-2186, 1998.
34. Victor JD, Conte MM and Iadecola C. Ocular dependence of hemifield visual evoked potentials: Relevance to bilateral cortical representation of central vision. Clinical Vision Sciences, 4: 261-276, 1991.
35. Wyatt HJ. Nasotemporal overlap and visual field sparing. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 17: 1128-1130, 1978.
36. Yovel G, Yovel I and Levy J. Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local visual perception: Effects of stimulus and task factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27 (6): 1369-1385, 2001.
37. Zeki SM and Sandeman DR. Combined anatomical and electrophysiological studies on the boundary between the second and third visual areas of rhesus monkey cortex. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 194: 555-562, 1976.