Abstract
Several studies have demonstrated that hemispheric differences for the processing of hierarchical letter stimuli are more likely to occur when the letters at the levels are associated with conflicting responses. Typically, a single stimulus is presented, so that the conflict occurs between the global and the local levels of the same stimulus. Our hypothesis is that in this situation, conflict resolution requires integration of the letters and their respective levels and that the hemispheres differ in this integration process. According to this integration theory, the favorable effect of response conflict on hemispheric differences should vanish if other features, such as location, can also serve for conflict resolution. This prediction was tested in the present study by simultaneously presenting an individual hierarchical stimulus to each visual field. Conflicting letters either were arranged within one stimulus or were placed in different stimuli. In the latter case, a response conflict could also be resolved by integrating letters and locations. As was expected, there were no visual field effects in these conditions. On the other hand, visual field effects showed up when the conflicting letters were located within the same stimulus. These results support the idea that the hemispheres differ in their capacity for integrating level and form.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boles, D. B. (1987). Reaction time asymmetry through bilateral versus unilateral stimulus presentation.Brain & Cognition,6, 321–333.
Briand, K. A. (1994). Selective attention to global and local structure of objects: Alternative measures of nontarget processing.Perception & Psychophysics,55, 562–574.
Delis, D. C., Robertson, L. C., &Efron, R. (1986). Hemispheric specialization of memory for visual hierarchical stimuli.Neuropsychologia,24, 205–214.
Evans, M. A., Shedden, J. M., Hevenor, S. J., &Hahn, M. C. (2000). The effect of variability of unattended information on global and local processing: Evidence for lateralization at early stages of processing.Neuropsychologia,38, 225–239.
Fink, G. R., Halligan, P. W., Marshall, J. C., Frith, C. D., Frackowiak, R. S. J., &Dolan, R. J. (1996). Where in the brain does visual attention select the forest and the trees?Nature,382, 626–628.
Fink, G. R., Marshall, J. C., Halligan, P. W., Frith, C. D., &Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1997). Hemispheric specialization for global and local processing: The effect of stimulus category.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,264, 487–494.
Han, S., Fan, S., Chen, L., &Zhuo, Y. (1999). Modulation of brain activities by hierarchical processing: A high-density ERP study.Brain Topography,11, 171–183.
Heinze, H. J., Hinrichs, H., Scholz, M., Burchert, W., &Mangun, G. R. (1998). Neural mechanisms of global and local processing: A combined PET and ERP study.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,10, 485–498.
Heinze, H. J., &Münte, T. F. (1993). Electrophysiological correlates of hierarchical stimulus processing: Dissociation between onset and later stages of global and local target processing.Neuropsychologia,31, 841–852.
Hübner, R. (1998). Hemispheric differences in global/local processing revealed by same-different judgements.Visual Cognition,5, 457–478.
Hübner, R. (2000). Attention shifting between global and local target levels: The persistence of level-repetition effects.Visual Cognition,7, 465–484.
Hübner, R., &Malinowski, P. (2002). The effect of response competition on functional hemispheric asymmetries for global/local processing.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 1290–1300.
Hübner, R., & Studer, T. (2006).Hemispheric differences for global/ local processing of naturalistic objects reveal that hierarchical letter stimuli are special. Unpublished manuscript.
Hübner, R., &Volberg, G. (2005). The integration of object levels and their content: A theory of global/local processing and related hemi spheric differences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,31, 520–541.
Johannes, S., Wieringa, B. M., Matzke, M., &Münte, T. F. (1996). Hierarchical visual stimuli: Electrophysiological evidence for separate left hemispheric global and local processing mechanisms in humans.Neuroscience Letters,210, 111–114.
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, & Cognition,16, 471–483.
Lamb, M. R., &Yund, E. W. (1996). Spatial frequency and attention: Effects of level-, target-, and location-repetition on the processing of global and local forms.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 363–373.
Malinowski, P., Hübner, R., Keil, A., &Gruber, T. (2002). The influence of response competition on cerebral asymmetries for processing hierarchical stimuli revealed by ERP recordings.Experimental Brain Research,144, 136–139.
Martin, M. (1979). Hemispheric specialization for global and local processing.Neuropsychologia,17, 33–40.
Martinez, A., Moses, P., Frank, L., Buxton, R., Wong, E., &Stiles, L. (1997). Hemispheric asymmetries in global and local processing: Evidence from fMRI.NeuroReport,8, 1685–1689.
Moses, P., &Stiles, J. (2002). The lesion methodology: Contrasting views from adult and child studies.Developmental Psychobiology,40, 266–277.
Paquet, L. (1992). Global and local processing in nonattended objects: A failure to induce local processing dominance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 512–529.
Paquet, L., &Merikle, P. M. (1988). Global precedence in attended and nonattended objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 89–100.
Polster, M. R., &Rapcsak, S. Z. (1994). Hierarchical stimuli and hemispheric specialization: Two case studies.Cortex,30, 487–497.
Robertson, L. C. (1996). Attentional persistence for features of hierarchical patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 227–249.
Robertson, L. C., Egly, R., Lamb, M. R., &Kerth, L. (1993). Spatial attention and cuing to global and local levels of hierarchical structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 471–487.
Robertson, L. C., &Lamb, M. R. (1991). Neuropsychological contributions to theories of part/whole organization.Cognitive Psychology,23, 299–330.
Schatz, J., Craft, S., Koby, M., &DeBaun, M. R. (2004). Asymmetries in visual-spatial processing following childhood stroke.Neuropsychology,18, 340–352.
Treisman, A., &Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries.Psychological Review,95, 15–48.
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.
Volberg, G., &Hübner, R. (2004). On the role of response conflicts and stimulus position for hemispheric differences in global/local processing: An ERP study.Neuropsychologia,42, 1805–1813.
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.
Weber, B., Schwarz, U., Kneifel, S., Treyer, V., &Buck, A. (2000). Hierarchical visual processing is dependent on the oculomotor system.NeuroReport,11, 241–247.
Weissman, D. H., &Banich, M. T. (1999). Global-local interference modulated by communication between the hemispheres.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,128, 283–308.
Yovel, G., Yovel, I., &Levy, J. (2001). Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local visual perception: Effects of stimulus and task factors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 1369–1385.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant Hu 432/7-4 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to the coauthor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Volberg, G., Hübner, R. Hemispheric differences for the integration of stimulus levels and their contents: Evidence from bilateral presentations. Perception & Psychophysics 68, 1274–1285 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193727
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193727