Reevaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Hemispheric dominance, retinal location, and the word-nonword effect

Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 113-121

  Jordan, Timothy R ^a   Paterson, Kevin B ^a   Kurtev, Stoyan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE FIXATION; HUMAN; LEFT HEMISPHERE; PERFORMANCE; RETINA FOVEA; STIMULUS; WORD RECOGNITION; ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; LINGUISTICS; METHODOLOGY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; RETINA; VISUAL FIELD;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FIXATION, OCULAR; FOVEA CENTRALIS; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); RETINA; VISUAL FIELDS; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 63849196624     PISSN: 15307026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/CABN.9.1.113     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Anliker, J. (1977). Eye movements on-line measurement, analysis, and control. In R. A. Monty & J. W. Senders (Eds.), Eye movements and psychological processes (pp. 185-202). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. ANNETT, M. (1970). A classification of hand preference by association analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 303-321.
3. ANS, B., CARBONNEL, S., & VALDOIS, S. (1998). A connectionist multiple-trace memory model for polysyllabic word reading. Psychological Review, 105, 678-723.
4. BAAYEN, R. H., PIEPENBROCK, R., & GULIKERS, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
5. BARON, J., & THURSTON, I. (1973). An analysis of the word superiority effect. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207-228.
6. BATT, V., UNDERWOOD, G., & BRYDEN, M. P. (1995). Inspecting asymmetric presentations of words differing in informational and morphemic structure. Brain & Language, 49, 202-223.
7. BOUMA, H. (1973). Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of the initial and final letters of words. Vision Research, 13, 767-782.
8. BRADSHAW, J. L., & NETTLETON, N. C. (1983). Human cerebral asymmetry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. BRANDT, T., STEPHAN, T., BENSE, S., YOUSRY, T. A., & DIETERICH, M. (2000). Hemifield visual motion stimulation: An example of interhemispheric crosstalk. NeuroReport, 11, 2803-2809.
10. BRYSBAERT, M. (1994). Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli. Behavioural Brain Research, 64, 151-161.
11. BRYSBAERT, M. (2004). The importance of interhemispheric transfer for foveal vision: A factor that has been overlooked in theories of visual word recognition and object perception. Brain & Language, 88, 259-267.
12. BRYSBAERT, M., VITU, F., & SCHROYENS, W. (1996). The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition. Neuropsychology, 10, 385-395.
13. BUB, D. N., & LEWINE, J. (1988). Different modes of word recognition in the left and right visual fields. Brain & Language, 33, 161-188.
14. BUNT, A. H., & MINCKLER, D. S. (1977). Foveal sparing: New anatomical evidence for bilateral representation of the central retina. Archives of Ophthalmology, 95, 1445-1447.
15. BURGUND, E. D., & MARSOLEK, C. J. (1997). Letter-case-specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere with a form-specific perceptual identification task. Brain & Cognition, 35, 239-258.
16. CARR, T. H., DAVIDSON, B. J., & HAWKINS, H. L. (1978). Perceptual flexibility in word recognition: Strategies affect orthographic computation but not lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 4, 674-690.
17. CARR, T. H., & POLLATSEK, A. (1985). Recognizing printed words: A look at current models. In D. Besner, T. G. Waller, & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 5, pp. 1-82). San Diego: Academic Press.
18. CHIARELLO, C. (1988). Lateralization of lexical processes in the normal human brain: A review of visual half-field research. In H. A. Whitaker (Ed.), Contemporary reviews in neuropsychology (pp. 36-76). New York: Springer.
19. DEHAENE, S., COHEN, L., SIGMAN, M., & VINCKIER, F. (2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Neurosciences, 9, 335-341.
20. DRASDO, N. (1977). The neural representation of visual space. Nature, 266, 554-556.
21. ELLIS, A. W. (2004). Length, formats, neighbours, hemispheres, and the processing of words presented laterally or at fixation. Brain & Language, 88, 355-366.
22. ELLIS, A. W., YOUNG, A., & ANDERSON, C. (1988). Modes of word recognition in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain & Language, 35, 254-273.
23. FENDRICH, R., WESSINGER, C. M., & GAZZANIGA, M. S. (1996). Nasotemporal overlap at the retinal veridical meridian: Investigations with a callosotomy patient. Neuropsychologia, 34, 637-646.
24. FINDLAY, J. M., & KAPOULA, Z. (1992). Scrutinization, spatial attention, and the spatial programming of saccadic eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 633-647.
25. GAZZANIGA, M. S. (2000). Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain, 123, 1293-1326.
26. GRAINGER, J., & JACOBS, A. M. (1994). A dual read-out model of word context effects in letter perception: Further investigations of the word superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1158-1176.
27. GRAINGER, J., & JACOBS, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518-565.
28. HELLIGE, J. B. (1993). Hemispheric asymmetry: What's right and what's left? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. HUNTER, Z., BRYSBAERT, M., & KNECHT, S. (2007). Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1373-1387.
30. JACOBS, A. M., & GRAINGER, J. (1994). Models of visual word recognition - Sampling the state of the art. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1311-1334.
31. JOHNSTON, J. C., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1980). Experimental tests of a hierarchical model of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 503-524.
32. JONES, B., & SANTI, A. (1978). Lateral asymmetries in visual perception with and without eye movements. Cortex, 14, 164-168.
33. JORDAN, T. R., & MONTEIRO, A. (2003). Generating anagrams from multiple core strings employing user-defined vocabularies and orthographic parameters. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 129-135.
34. JORDAN, T. R., & PATCHING, G. R. (2003a). Assessing effects of stimulus orientation on perception of lateralized words and nonwords. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1693-1702.
35. JORDAN, T. R., & PATCHING, G. R. (2003b). Perceptual interactions between bilaterally presented words: What you get is often not what you see. Neuropsychology, 17, 566-577.
36. JORDAN, T. R., & PATCHING, G. R. (2006). Assessing effects of fixation demands on perception of lateralized words: A visual window technique for studying hemispheric asymmetry. Neuropsychologia, 44, 686-692.
37. JORDAN, T. R., PATCHING, G. R., & MILNER, A. D. (1998). Central fixations are inadequately controlled by instructions alone: Implications for studying cerebral asymmetry. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 371-391.
38. JORDAN, T. R., PATCHING, G. R., & MILNER, A. D. (2000). Lateralized word recognition: Assessing the role of hemispheric specialization, modes of lexical access and perceptual asymmetry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1192-1208.
39. JORDAN, T. R., PATCHING, G. R., & THOMAS, S. M. (2003a). Assessing the role of hemispheric specialization, serial-position processing and retinal eccentricity in lateralized word perception. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 49-71.
40. JORDAN, T. R., PATCHING, G. R., & THOMAS, S. M. (2003b). Asymmetries and eccentricities in studies of lateralized word recognition: A response to Nazir. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 81-89.
41. JORDAN, T. R., & PATERSON, K. B. (in press). Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: A critical assessment of recent research. Neuropsychologia.
42. JORDAN, T. R., PATERSON, K. B., KURTEV, S., & XU, M. (in press-a). Do fixation cues ensure fixation accuracy in split-fovea studies of word recognition? Neuropsychologia.
43. JORDAN, T. R., PATERSON, K. B., KURTEV, S., & XU, M. (in press-b). Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Effects of word length during monocular viewing. Cortex.
44. JORDAN, T. R., PATERSON, K. B., & STACHURSKI, M. (2008). Reevaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Effects of retinal eccentricity on hemispheric dominance. Neuropsychology, 22, 738-745.
45. JORDAN, T. R., PATERSON, K. B., & STACHURSKI, M. (in press). Reevaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Effects of word length. Cortex.
46. JORDAN, T. R., REDWOOD, M., & PATCHING, G. R. (2003). Effects of form familiarity on perception of words, pseudowords, and nonwords in the two cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 537-548.
47. KNECHT, S., DEPPE, M., DRÄGER, B., BOBE, L., LOHMANN, H., RINGLESTEIN, E. B., & HENNINGSEN, H. (2000). Language lateralisation in healthy right-handers. Brain, 123, 74-81.
48. LAVIDOR, M., & BAILEY, P. J. (2005). Dissociations between serial position and number of letters effects in lateralized visual word recognition. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 258-273.
49. LAVIDOR, M., ELLIS, A. W., SHILLCOCK, R., & BLAND, T. (2001). Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of word length. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 265-272.
50. LAVIDOR, M., ELLISON, A., & WALSH, V. (2003). The cortical representation of centrally presented words: A magnetic stimulation study. Visual Cognition, 10, 341-362.
51. LAVIDOR, M., & WALSH, V. (2004). The nature of foveal representation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 729-735.
52. LEFF, A. P. (2004). A historical review of the representation of the visual field in primary visual cortex with special reference to the neural mechanisms underlying macular sparing. Brain & Language, 88, 268-278.
53. LEVENTHAL, A. G., AULT, S. J., & VITEK, D. J. (1988). The nasotemporal division in primate retina: The neural bases of macular sparing and splitting. Science, 240, 66-67.
54. LINDELL, A. K., & NICHOLLS, M. E. R. (2003). Cortical representation of the fovea: Implications for visual half-field research. Cortex, 39, 111-117.
55. LOFTUS, G. R., & MASSON, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
56. LOOMIS, J. M. (1978). Lateral masking in foveal and eccentric vision. Vision Research, 18, 335-338.
57. MANELIS, L. (1974). The effect of meaningfulness in tachistoscopic word perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 182-192.
58. MARTIN, C. D., THIERRY, G., DÉMONET, J. F., ROBERTS, M., & NAZIR, T. (2007). ERP evidence for the split fovea theory. Brain Research, 1185, 212-220.
59. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & JOHNSTON, J. C. (1977). The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 249-261.
60. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & RUMELHART, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
61. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & RUMELHART, D. E. (1988). Explorations in parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. O'REGAN, J. K. (1981). The convenient viewing position hypothesis. In D. F. Fisher, R. A. Monty, & J. W. Senders (Eds.), Eye movements, cognition, and visual perception (pp. 289-298). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
63. O'REGAN, J. K., LÉVY-SCHOEN, A., PYNTE, J., & BRUGAILLÈRE, B. (1984). Convenient fixation location within isolated words of different length and structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 250-257.
64. PAAP, K. R., NEWSOME, S. L., MCDONALD, J. E., & SCHVANEVELDT, R. W. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89, 573-594.
65. PATCHING, G. R., & JORDAN, T. R. (1998). Increasing the benefits of eye-tracking devices in divided visual field studies of cerebral asymmetry. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 643-650.
66. PLAUT, D. C., MCCLELLAND, J. L., SEIDENBERG, M. S., & PATTERSON, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
67. QUERNÉ, L., EUSTACHE, F., & FAURE, S. (2000). Interhemispheric inhibition, intrahemispheric activation, and lexical capacities of the right hemisphere: A tachistoscopic, divided visual-field study in normal subjects. Brain & Language, 74, 171-190.
68. RAYNER, K., & POLLATSEK, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
69. REICHER, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 275-280.
70. REINHARD, J., & TRAUZETTEL-KLOSINSKI, S. (2003). Nasotemporal overlap of retinal ganglion cells in humans: A functional study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 4, 1568-1572.
71. REUTER-LORENZ, P. A., & BAYNES, K. (1992). Modes of lexical access in the callosotomized brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 155-164.
72. RUMELHART, D. E., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60-94.
73. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
74. SHILLCOCK, R. [C.], ELLISON, T. M., & MONAGHAN, P. (2000). Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage, and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychological Review, 107, 824-851.
75. SHILLCOCK, R. C., & MCDONALD, S. A. (2005). Hemispheric division of labour in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 244-257.
76. SPOEHR, K. T., & SMITH, E. E. (1975). The role of orthographic and phono tactic rules in perceiving letter patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1, 21-34.
77. STEVENS, M., & GRAINGER, J. (2003). Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 133-151.
78. STONE, J. (1966). The naso-temporal division of the cat's retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 126, 585-600.
79. STONE, J., LEICESTER, J., & SHERMAN, S. M. (1973). The naso-temporal division of the monkey's retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 150, 333-348.
80. SUGISHITA, M., HAMILTON, C. R., SAKUMA, I., & HEMMI, I. (1994). Hemispheric representations of the central retina of commissurotomized subjects. Neuropsychologia, 32, 399-415.
81. TERRACE, H. S. (1959). The effects of retinal locus and attention on the perception of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 382-385.
82. TRAUZETTEL-KLOSINSKI, S., & REINHARD, J. (1998). The vertical field border in hemianopia and its significance for fixation and reading. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 39, 2177-2186.
83. WHEELER, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 59-85.