Effects of stimulus pair orientation and hand switching on reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transfer
Two behavioral estimates of interhemispheric transfer time, the crossed-uncrossed difference (CUD) and the unilateral field advantage (UFA), are thought to, respectively, index transfer of premotor and visual information across the corpus callosum in neurotypical participants. However, no attempt to manipulate visual and motor contingencies in a set of tasks while measuring the CUD and the UFA has yet been reported. In two go/no-go comparison experiments, stimulus pair orientations were manipulated. The hand of response changed after each correct response in the second, but not the first experiment. No correlation was found between the CUD and the UFA, supporting the hypothesis that these two measures index different types of information transfer across hemispheres. An effect of manipulation of stimulus pair orientation on UFAs was attributed to the homotopy of callosal fibers transferring visual information, while an effect of hand switching on CUDs was attributed mostly to spatial compatibility.
KeywordsCrossed-uncrossed difference Unilateral-bilateral field advantage Interhemispheric transfer time Callosal homotopy.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Experimental procedures for the first experiment were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Université du Québec à Montréal Psychology Department. Experimental procedures for the second experiment were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Université du Québec à Montréal Faculty of Human Sciences.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Berlucchi G, Crea F, Di Stefano M, Tassinari G (1977) Influence of spatial stimulus—response compatibility on reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized light stimuli. J Exp Psycho Hum Percept Perform 3:505–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15188.8.131.525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leblanc-Sirois Y, Braun CMJ (2014) Intra and inter hemispheric dynamics revealed by reaction time in the Dimond paradigm: a quantitative review of the literature. Neuropsychologia 58:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.03.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Poffenberger AT (1912) Reaction time to retinal stimulation with special reference to the time lost in conduction through nerve centers. Arch Psychol 23:1–73Google Scholar
- Savazzi S, Fabri M, Rubboli G, Paggi A, Tassinari CA, Marzi CA (2007) Interhemispheric transfer following callosotomy in humans: role of the superior colliculus. Neuropsychologia 45:2417–2427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.04.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zaidel E (1983) Disconnection syndrome as a model for laterality effects in the normal brain. In: Hellige J (ed) Cerebral hemisphere asymmetry. A.R. Liss, New York, pp 95–151Google Scholar