The mechanisms underlying the interhemispheric integration of information in foveal word recognition: Evidence for transcortical inhibition

Brain and Language

Volumn 118, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 81-89

  Van der Haegen, Lise ^a   Brysbaert, Marc ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Interhemispheric inhibition; Laterality; Split fovea theory; Word recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE DOMINANCE; EYE FIXATION; EYE TRACKING; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERHEMISPHERIC TRANSFER; LEFT HEMISPHERE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OPTIC TRACT; PROCESS MODEL; RESPONSE TIME; RETINA FOVEA; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRANSCORTICAL INHIBITION; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL INFORMATION; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

BRAIN; FEMALE; FOVEA CENTRALIS; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79959674017     PISSN: 0093934X     EISSN: 10902155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.03.006     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Baayen R.H., Piepenbrock R., Van Rijn H. The CELEX lexical database. [CD-ROM] 1993, University of Pennsylvania: Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
2. Bourne V.J. The divided visual field paradigm: Methodological considerations. Laterality 2006, 11:373-393.
3. Brysbaert M. Lateral preferences and visual field asymmetries: Appearances may have been overstated. Cortex 1994, 30:413-429.
4. Bunt A.H., Minckler D.S., Johanson G.W. Demonstration of bilateral projection of the central retina of the monkey with horseradish peroxidase neuronography. Journal of Comparative Neurology 1977, 171:619-630.
5. Cai Q., Lavidor M., Brysbaert M., Paulignan Y., Nazir T.A. Cerebral lateralization of frontal lobe language processes and lateralization of the posterior visual word processing system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 20:672-681.
6. Cai Q., Paulignan Y., Brysbaert M., Ibarrola D., Nazir T.A. The left ventral occipito-temporal response to words depends on language lateralization but not on visual familiarity. Cerebral Cortex 2010, 20:1153-1163.
7. Carreiras M., Seghier M.L., Baquero S., Estévez A., Lozano A., Devlin J.T., et al. An anatomical signature for literacy. Nature 2009, 461:983-988.
8. Chiarello C., Maxfield L. Varieties of interhemispheric inhibition, or how to keep a good hemisphere down. Brain and Cognition 1996, 30:81-108.
9. Cohen L., Dehaene S., Naccache L., Lehericy S., Dehaene-Lambertz G., Henaff M.A., et al. The visual word form area: Spatial and temporal characterization of an initial stage of reading in normal subjects and posterior split-brain patients. Brain 2000, 123:291-307.
10. Davis C.J., Taft M. More words in the neighborhood: Interference in lexical decision due to deletion neighbors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:904-910.
11. Drieghe D., Brysbaert M., Desmet T. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements in text reading: Does an extra space make a difference?. Vision Research 2005, 45:1693-1706.
12. Duyck W., Desmet T., Verbeke L.P.C., Brysbaert M. WordGen: A tool for word selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 2004, 36:488-499.
13. Ellis A.W., Brysbaert M. Split fovea theory and the role of the two cerebral hemispheres in reading: A review of the evidence. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48:353-365.
14. Endrass T., Mohr B., Pulvermüller F. Enhanced mismatch negativity brain response after binaural word presentation. European Journal of Neuroscience 2004, 19:1653-1660.
15. Gazzaniga M.S. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition?. Brain 2000, 123:1293-1326.
16. Heesy C.P. Seeing in stereo: The ecology and evolution of primate binocular vision and stereopsis. Evolutionary Anthropology 2009, 18:21-35.
17. Hickok G., Poeppel D. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2007, 8:393-402.
18. Hunter Z.R., Brysbaert M., Knecht S. Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19:1373-1387.
19. Josse G., Tzourio-Mazoyer N. Hemispheric specialization for language. Brain Research Reviews 2004, 44:1-12.
20. Knecht S., Dräger B., Deppe M., Bobe L., Lohmann H., Floel A., et al. Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain 2000, 123:2512-2518.
21. Leff A. 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 and Language 2004, 88:268-278.
22. Lindell A.K., Nicholls M.E.R. Cortical representation of the fovea: Implications for visual half-field research. Cortex 2003, 39:111-117.
23. McCormick, S. F., Davis, C. J., & Brysbaert, M., (2010). Embedded words in visual word recognition: Does the left hemisphere see the rain in brain? Manuscript submitted for publication.
24. Miles W.R. Ocular dominance in human adults. Journal of General Psychology 1930, 3:412-430.
25. Mohr B., Endrass T., Hauk O., Pulvermüller F. ERP correlates of the bilateral redundancy gain for words. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45:2114-2124.
26. Mohr B., Pulvermüller F., Zaidel E. Lexical decision after left, right and bilateral presentation of function words, content words and non-words: Evidence for interhemispheric interaction. Neuropsychologia 1994, 32:105-124.
27. Nazir T.A., Ben-Boutayab N., Decoppet N., Deutsch A., Frost R. Reading habits, perceptual learning, and recognition of printed words. Brain and Language 2004, 88:294-311.
28. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9:97-113.
29. Porac C., Coren S. Lateral preferences and human behavior 1981, Springer-Verlag, New York.
30. Pulvermüller F., Mohr B. The concept of transcortical cell assemblies: A key to the understanding of cortical lateralization and interhemispheric interaction. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 1996, 20:557-566.
31. Rayner K., Fischer M.H., Pollatsek A. Unspaced text interferes with both word identification and eye movement control. Vision Research 1998, 38:1129-1144.
32. Shillcock R., Ellison T.M., Monaghan P. Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage, and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychological Review 2000, 107:824-851.
33. Shtyrov Y., Osswald K., Pulvermüller F. Memory traces for spoken words in the brain as revealed by the hemodynamic correlate of the mismatch negativity. Cerebral Cortex 2008, 18:29-37.
34. Stephan K.E., Marshall J.C., Penny W.D., Friston K.J., Fink G.R. Interhemispheric integration of visual processing during task-driven lateralization. The Journal of Neuroscience 2007, 27:3512-3522.
35. Van der Haegen L., Brysbaert M., Davis C.J. How does interhemispheric communication in visual word recognition work? Deciding between early and late integration accounts of the split fovea theory. Brain and Language 2009, 108:112-121.
36. Van der Haegen L., Drieghe D., Brysbaert M. The split fovea theory and the leicester critique: What do the data say?. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48:96-106.
37. Whitney C. How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2001, 8:221-243.
38. Whitney C. Supporting the serial in the SERIOL model. Language and Cognitive Processes 2008, 23:824-865.
39. Wyatt H.J. Nasotemporal overlap and visual field sparing. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1978, 17:1128-1130.