Attentional deployment in visual half-field tasks: The effect of cue position on word naming latency

Brain and Cognition

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 273-277

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LEFT HEMISPHERE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; SPATIAL MEMORY; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0242494106     PISSN: 02782626     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00125-8     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Anstis S.M. A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position. Vision Research. 14:1974;589-592.
2. Babkoff H., Faust M. Lexical decision and visual hemifields: An examination of the RT-accuracy relationship. Neuropsychologia. 26:1988;711-726.
3. Babkoff H., Faust M., Lavidor M. Lexical decision, visual hemifield and angle of orientation. Neuropsychologia. 35:1997;487-495.
4. Bub D.N., Lewine J. Different modes of word recognition in the left and right visual fields. Brain and Language. 33:1988;161-188.
5. Chiarello C. Lateralization of lexical processes in the normal brain: A review of visual half-field research. Whitaker H.A. Contemporary reviews in neuropsychology. 1988;36-76 Springer-Verlag, New York.
6. Ellis A.W., Young A.W., Anderson C. Modes of word recognition in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language. 35:1988;254-273.
7. Gazzaniga M.S. Right hemisphere language following brain bisection: A 20-year perspective. American Psychologist. 38:1983;525-537.
8. Gilhooly K.J., Logie R.H. Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words. Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation. 12:1980;395-427.
9. Gross M.M. Hemispheric specialization for processing of visually presented verbal and spatial information. Perception and Psychophysics. 12:1972;357-363.
10. Kucera H., Francis W.N. Computational analysis of present-day American English. 1967;Brown University Press, Providence, RI.
11. LaBerge D., Brown V. Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review. 96:1989;101-124.
12. Leiber L. Lexical decisions in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language. 3:1976;443-450.
13. Loftus G.R., Masson M.E. Using confidence intervals in within-subjects designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1:1994;476-493.
14. Nicholls M.E.R., Wood A.G. The contribution of attention to the right visual field advantage for word recognition. Brain and Cognition. 38:1998;339-357.
15. Oldfield R.C. The assessment of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia. 9:1971;97-133.
16. Patterson K., Vargha-Khadem F., Polkey C.F. Reading with one hemisphere. Brain. 112:1989;39-63.
17. Pirrozzolo F.J., Rayner K. Handedness, hemispheric specialization and saccadic eye movement latencies. Neuropsychologia. 18(2):1980;225-229.
18. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin. 124(3):1998;372-422.
19. Toglia M.P., Battig W.G. Handbook of semantic word norms. 1978;Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
20. Young A.W., Ellis A.W. Different methods of lexical access for words presented in the left and right visual hemifields. Brain and Language. 24:1985;326-358.