The Effect of Handedness on Visual P300 Responses and Visual Scanning Pathways

Abstract

It is thought that hemispheric asymmetry is reflected to behavioral asymmetries. The most prominent behavioral asymmetry is hand preference. This study consisted of two groups (14 each) with different handedness. Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) to a visual oddball task were recorded from 19 sites, and another session with a “change detection paradigm” was applied, where the visual scanning pathways were recorded. Although the comparison of P300 grand averages of 19 sites showed no significant difference between the groups, the comparison of the central sites (Fz, Cz, Pz) showed significant differences of both, amplitude and latency, (p<0.05; p<0.04) respectively, where larger amplitudes and longer latencies were found in the right handed group. Both groups have showed larger P300 amplitudes of right hemispheric responses (p<0.01) in inter-hemispheric comparison. The results of “change detection paradigm” have shown no significant difference between the groups. The cognitive processing of visual information was found to be more dominant at the right hemisphere in both groups, and stronger at central sites in right handed subjects than their left handed counter partners. The study included both, right- and left handed subjects, which makes it more specific than the previous studies in the field. The present findings were related with the results of studies which examine the thickness of the skull, the size of corpus callosal area and the functional specialization of hemispheres.

References

  1. Alexander, J.E., Porjesz, B., Bauer, L.O., Kuperman, S., Morzorati, S., O’Connor, S.J., Rohrbaugh, J., Begleiter, H., & Polich, J. (1995). P300 Hemispheric amplitude asymmetries from a visual oddball task. Psychophysiology, 32, 467–475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander, J.E., & Polich, J. (1997). Handedness and P300 from auditory stimuli. Brain and Cognition, 35, 259–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Annett, M. (1967). The binominal distribution of right, mixed and left handedness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental. Psychology, 19, 327–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Annett, M. (1992). Parallels between asymmetries of planum temporale and of hand skill. Neuropsychologia, 30, 951–962.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Annett, M. (1998). Handedness and Cerebral Dominance: The Right Shift Theory. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 10, 459–469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bear, M.F., Connors, B.W., & Paradiso, M.A. (2001). Language and attention. Neuroscience, Exploring the Brain. Baltimor: William & Wilkins, 576–614.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berger, H. (1929). über das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 87, 527–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Broca, P. (1861). Remarques sur le siege de la faculté du langage articulé; suivies d’une observation d’aphémie (perte de la parole). Bulletins de la Societé Anatomique (Paris), 6, 330–357, 398-407.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Broca, P. (1878). Anatomie compare des circonvolutions cerebrales. Le grand lobe limbique et la scissure limbique dans la série des mammiféres. Revue d’Anthropologie Sér, 2(1), 385–498.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bosworth, R.G., Petrich, J.A., & Dobkins, K.R. (2012). Effects of spatial attention on motion discrimination are greater in the left than right visual field. Vision Research, 52(1), 11–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chapman, L.J., & Chapman, J.P. (1987). The measurement of handedness. Brain and Cognition, 6, 175–183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chui, H.C., & Damasio, A.R. (1980). Human cerebral asymmetries evaluated by computed tomography. Journal of Neurological Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 43, 873–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Clark, V., & Hillyard, SA. (1996). Spatial selective attention affects early extrastriate but not striate components of the visual evoked potential. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 387–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Çiçek, M., Gitelman, D., Hurley, R.S., Nobre, A., & Mesulam, M. (2007). Anatomical physiology of spatial extinction. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 2892–2898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Davidson, R.J. (1984). Affect, cognition, and hemispheric specialization. In: C.E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition and behavior, pp. 320–365. England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Driesen, N.R., & Raz, N. (1995). The influence of sex, age, and handedness of corpus callosum morphology: a meta-analysis. Psychobiology, 23, 240–247.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A.M. (1984). Cerebral Dominance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harris, L.J. (1991). Cerebral control for speech in right-handers and left-handers: an analysis of the views of Paul Broca, his contemporaries, and his successors. Brain and Language, 40(1), 1–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoptman, M.J., & Davidson, R.J. (1994). How and why do the two cerebral hemispheres interact? Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 195–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Isoglu-Alkaç, ü. (2009). Beyin arastirmalari tarihinde bir gezinti: Elektronörofizyoloji. Klinik gelisim, 22(3), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I.Q. (1996). Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology; 4th ed. New York: W.H.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Freeman and Company. Knecht, S., Dräger, B., Deppe, M., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., & Flöel A., et al. (2000). Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain, 123, 2512–2518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nalçaci, E. (2008). Bey in islevlerinin yanallasmasi. In: S. Karakas, (Ed.), Kognitif Nörobilimler,. 149–168.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ankara: MN Medikal & Nobel Tip Kitap Sarayi. Nalçaci, E., Kalaycioglu, C, Günes, E., & Çiçek, M. (2002). DeEl tercihi anketinin geçerlik ve güvenilirligi. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 13(2), 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Okada, T., Sato, W., Kubota, Y., Toichi, M., & Murai, T. (2012). Right hemispheric dominance and interhemispheric cooperation in gaze-triggered reflexive shift of attention. Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 66(2), 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Polich, J. (1998). P300 clinical utility and control of variability. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 15, 14–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Polich, J., & Hoffman, L.D. (1998). P300 and handedness: On the possible contribution of corpus callosal size to ERPs. Psychophysiology, 35, 497–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Reinvang, I., Magnussen, S., & Greenlee, M.W. (2002). Hemispheric asymmetry in visual discrimination and memory: ERP evidence for the spatial frequency hypothesis. Experimental Brain Research, 144, 483–495.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rensink, R.A., O’Regan, J.K., & Clark, J.J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simons, D.J., & Levin, D.T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 261–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Springer, S.P., & Deutsch, G. (1993). Left Brain, Right Brain 4th Edition, New York: W.H. Freeman Company.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Suzuki, M., & Hoshiyama, M. (2011). Difference in P300 response between hemi-field visual stimulation. Neural Sciences, 23, 603–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wada, J. (1949). A new method for the determination of the side of cerebral speech dominance. A preliminary report on the intracarotid injection of Sodium Amytal in man. Igaku to Seibutsugaku Medicine and Biology, 14, 221–222.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wada, J, & Rasmussen, T. (2007). Intracarotid injection of Sodium Amytal for the Lateralization of Cerebral Speech Dominance, 1960. Journal of Neurosurgery, 106(6), 1117–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Witelson, S.F. (1985). The brain connection: the corpus callosum is larger in left-handers. Science, 229, 665–668.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wuerger, S., Xiao, K., Mylonas, D., Huang, Q., Karatzas, D., Hird, E., & Paramei, G. (2012). Blue-green color categorization in Mandarin-English speakers. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 29(2), 102–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ümmühan İsoglu-Alkac.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eskikurt, G., Yücesir, İ. & İsoglu-Alkac, Ü. The Effect of Handedness on Visual P300 Responses and Visual Scanning Pathways. Act Nerv Super 55, 38–50 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03379595

Download citation

Key words

  • EEG
  • Event-Related Potentials
  • ERPs
  • H and preference
  • P300