Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 6, pp 1593–1602 | Cite as

Effects of stimulus pair orientation and hand switching on reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transfer

  • Yanick Leblanc-Sirois
  • Claude M. J. Braun
  • Jonathan Elie-Fortier
Research Article


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.


Crossed-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.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Aglioti S, Tassinari G, Berlucchi G (1996) Spatial stimulus – response compatibility in callosotomy patients and subjects with callosal agenesis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 20:623–629. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anzola GP, Bertoloni G, Buchtel HA, Rizzolatti G (1977) Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction time. Neuropsychologia 15:295–302. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Banich MT, Belger A (1990) Interhemispheric interaction: how do hemispheres divide and conquer a task? Cortex 26:77–94. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Belger A, Banich MT (1992) Interhemispheric interaction affected by computational complexity. Neuropsychologia 30:923–929. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlucchi G, Heron W, Hyman R, Rizzolatti G, Umiltà AG (1971) Simple reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized visual stimuli. Brain 94:419–430. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourne VJ (2006) The divided visual field paradigm: Methodological considerations. Laterality 11:373–393. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun CMJ (1992) Estimation of interhemispheric dynamics from simple unilateral reaction time to extrafoveal stimuli. Neuropsychol Rev 3:321–365. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Braun CMJ, Collin I, Mailloux C (1997) The “Poffenberger” and “Dimond” paradigms: interrelated approaches to the study of interhemispheric dynamics? Brain Cogn 34:337–359. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Braun CMJ, Larocque C, Achim A (2004) Experimental disentangling of spatial-compatibility and interhemispheric-relay effects in simple reaction time (Poffenberger paradigm). Exp Brain Res 157:442–456. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Braun CMJ, Achim A, Gauvin G, Desjardins S, Roberge C, Suffren S (2011) New variations of intrahemispheric and interhemispheric processing indexed by the Dimond paradigm. Am J Psychol 124:163–176. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Braun CMJ, Achim A, Roberge C, Gauvin G (2015) Callosal sensitivity to short-range stimulus orientation and long-range stimulus context orientation: tachistoscopic evidence. Am J Psychol 128:355–365. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown WS, Jeeves MA (1993) Bilateral visual field processing and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission time. Neuropsychologia 31:1267–1281. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown WS, Bjerke MD, Galbraith GC (1998) Interhemispheric transfer in normals and acallosals: latency adjusted evoked potential averaging. Cortex 34:677–692. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown WS, Jeeves MA, Dietrich R, Burnison DS (1999) Bilateral field advantage and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission in commissurotomy and callosal agenesis. Neuropsychologia 37:1165–1180. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke JM, Zaidel E (1989) Simple reaction times to lateralized flashes: varieties of interhemispheric communication routes. Brain 112:849–870. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Desjardins S, Braun CMJ, Achim A, Roberge C (2009) A choice reaction time index of callosal anatomical homotopy. Brain Cogn 71:46–51. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Stefano M, Saurerwein HC, Lassonde M (1992) Influence of anatomical factors and spatial compatibility on the stimulus-response relationship in the absence of the corpus callosum. Neuropsychologia 30:177–185. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimond SJ (1969) Hemisphere function and immediate memory. Psychonomic Sci 16:111–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedrich P, Ocklenburg S, Mochalski L, Schlüter C, Güntürkün O, Genc E (2017) Long-term reliability of the visual EEG Poffenberger paradigm. Behav Brain Res 330:85–91. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hommel B, Pratt J, Colzato L, Godijn R (2001) Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychol Sci 12:360–365. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Iacoboni M, Zaidel E (1995) Channels of the corpus callosum: Evidence from simple reaction times to lateralized flashes in the normal and the split brain. Brain 118:779–788. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Larocque C, Achim A, Braun CMJ (2001) Refutation of Poffenberger’s inference: An existence proof and a countermodel. Brain Cogn 46:188–191. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Larson EB, Brown WS (1997) Bilateral field interactions, hemispheric specialization and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission time. Neuropsychologia 35:573–581. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Leblanc-Sirois Y, Braun CMJ (2015) Inter-hemispheric dynamics revealed by reaction time in the Dimond paradigm. Q J Exp Psychol 68:165–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lines CR, Rugg MD, Milner AD (1984) The effects of stimulus intensity on visual evoked potential estimates of interhemispheric transmission time. Exp Brain Res 57:89–98. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Marzi CA, Bisiacchi P, Nicoletti R (1991) Is interhemispheric transfer of visuomotor information asymmetric? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia 29:1163–1177. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Milner AD, Lines CR (1982) Interhemispheric pathways in simple reaction time to lateralized light flash. Neuropsychologia 20:171–179. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Rugg MD, Lines CR, Milner AD (1985) Further investigation of visual evoked potentials elicited by lateralized stimuli: Effects of stimulus eccentricity and reference site. EEG Clin Neurophysiol 62:81–87. Google Scholar
  32. Saron CD, Davidson RJ (1989) Visual evoked potential measures of interhemispheric transfer time in humans. Behav Neurosci 103:1115–1138. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Thut G, Hauert C-A, Morand S, Seeck M, Landis T, Michel C (1999) Evidence for motor-level transfer in a simple reaction time task: an EEG study. Exp Brain Res 128:256–261. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yanick Leblanc-Sirois
    • 1
  • Claude M. J. Braun
    • 1
  • Jonathan Elie-Fortier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations