Contralateral Hemisphere Activation by Unilateral Hand Contraction: ReExamining Global and Local Attention

Abstract

While previous studies have shown that left- (vs. right-) hand contractions can improve the performance of global (vs. local) attention, these results were inconsistent in certain behavioral studies in which the left cerebral hemisphere was found to be specialized for local attention, while the right hemisphere was not specialized for global attention. Thus, we reexamined whether different global (vs. local) attention performances follow left- (vs. right-) hand contractions due to right (vs. left) hemisphere activation. We recruited 100 right-handed healthy female, university student (aged 19–26 years) participants. We used the Navon task to present 80 letter-stimuli (40 in the global task; 40 in the local task) to either the participants’ left or right visual fields. Half of the participants (randomly selected) were instructed to squeeze a dynamometer with the left hand, while the other half squeezed with the right hand, prior to completing the Navon task. In line with previous research, we observed a perceptual advantage of global (large letters) over local (small letters) stimuli. Participants who contracted the right hand showed an enhanced local attention performance (from left hemisphere activation), whereas those who contracted the left hand did not improve global attention performance (from right hemisphere activation). Thus, we supported prior behavioral research suggesting that hemispheric asymmetry for attention processing is evident for left but not right cortical hemisphere processing.

Keywords

Navon task global attention local attention left hemisphere right hemisphere

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boles

D. B.

Karner

T. A.

(1996) Hemispheric differences in global versus local processing: Still unclear. Brain and Cognition 30(2): 232–243. doi:10.1006/brcg.1996.0015.

Boksem

M. A.

Kostermans

Tops

De Cremer

(2012) Individual differences in asymmetric resting-state frontal cortical activity modulate ERPs and performance in a global-local attention task. Journal of Psychophysiology 26(2): 51–62. doi:10.1027/0269-8803/a000067.

Conte

Gilio

Iezzi

Frasca

Inghilleri

Berardelli

(2007) Attention influences the excitability of cortical motor areas in healthy humans. Experimental Brain Research 182(1): 109–117. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-0975-3.

Davidson

Cave

K. R.

Sellner

(2000) Differences in visual attention and task interference between males and females reflect differences in brain laterality. Neuropsychologia 38(4): 508–519. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00084-6.

De Schotten

M. T.

Dell'Acqua

Forkel

S. J.

Simmons

Vergani

Murphy

D. G.

Catani

(2011) A lateralized brain network for visuospatial attention. Nature Neuroscience 14(10): 1245–1246. doi:10.1038/nn.2905.

Evert

D. L.

Kmen

(2003) Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local processing as a function of stimulus exposure duration. Brain and Cognition 51(1): 115–142. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(02)00528-6.

Fazio

R. H.

(1990) A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology 11: 74–97.

Fink

G. R.

Halligan

P. W.

Marshall

J. C.

Frith

C. D.

Frackowiak

R. S.

Dolan

R. J.

(1997) Neural mechanisms involved in the processing of global and local aspects of hierarchically organized visual stimuli. Brain: A Journal of Neurology 120(10): 1779–1791. doi:10.1093/brain/120.10.1779.

Förster

Higgins

E. T.

(2005) How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science 16(8): 631–636. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01586.x.

10.

Gable

P. A.

Harmon-Jones

(2008) Approach-motivated positive affect reduces breadth of attention. Psychological Science 19(5): 476–482. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02112.x.

11.

Gable

P. A.

Harmon-Jones

(2010) Late positive potential to appetitive stimuli and local attentional bias. Emotion 10(3): 441, doi:10.1037/a0018425.

12.

Gable

P. A.

Harmon-Jones

(2012) Reducing attentional capture of emotion by broadening attention: Increased global attention reduces early electrophysiological responses to negative stimuli. Biological Psychology 90(2): 150–153. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.02.006.

13.

Gable

P. A.

Poole

B. D.

Cook

M. S.

(2013) Asymmetrical hemisphere activation enhances global–local processing. Brain and Cognition 83(3): 337–341. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2013.09.012.

14.

Han

Woods

D. L.

(2000) Hierarchical processing and level-repetition effect as indexed by early brain potentials. Psychophysiology 37(6): 817–830. doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3760817.

15.

Han

Weaver

J. A.

Murray

S. O.

Kang

Yund

E. W.

Woods

D. L.

(2002) Hemispheric asymmetry in global/local processing: Effects of stimulus position and spatial frequency. Neuroimage 17(3): 1290–1299. doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1255.

16.

Harmon-Jones

(2006) Unilateral right-hand contractions cause contralateral alpha power suppression and approach motivational affective experience. Psychophysiology 43(6): 598–603. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00465.x.

17.

Hübner

Volberg

Studer

(2007) Hemispheric differences for global/local processing in divided attention tasks: Further evidence for the integration theory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 69(3): 413–421. doi:10.3758/BF03193762.

18.

Kéïta

Bedoin

Burack

J. A.

Lepore

(2014) Switching between global and local levels: The level repetition effect and its hemispheric asymmetry. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 252, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00252.

19.

Lagasse

L. L.

(1993) Effects of good form and spatial frequency on global precedence. Perception & Psychophysics 53(1): 89–105. doi:10.3758/BF03211718.

20.

Lamb

M. R.

(1996) Spatial frequency and interference between global and local levels of structure. Visual Cognition 3(3): 193–220. doi:10.1080/713756739.

21.

Lamb

M. R.

Robertson

L. C.

(1989) Do response time advantage and interference reflect the order of processing of global-and local-level information? Perception & Psychophysics 46(3): 254–258. doi:10.3758/BF03208087.

22.

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, and Cognition 16(3): 471, doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.471.

23.

Malinowski

Hübner

Keil

Gruber

(2002) The influence of response competition on cerebral asymmetries for processing hierarchical stimuli revealed by ER P recordings. Experimental Brain Research 144(1): 136–139. doi:10.1007/s00221-002-1057-1.

24.

Navon

(1977) Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology 9(3): 353–383. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3.

25.

Peirce

J. W.

(2007) PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162(1-2): 8–13. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017.

26.

Peirce, J. W. (2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, 10. doi:10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008.

27.

Peterson

C. K.

Shackman

A. J.

Harmon-Jones

(2008) The role of asymmetrical frontal cortical activity in aggression. Psychophysiology 45(1): 86–92. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00597.x.

28.

Pineda

J. A.

(2005) The functional significance of mu rhythms: Translating “seeing” and “hearing” into “doing.”. Brain Research Reviews 50(1): 57–68. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.04.005.

29.

Robertson

L. C.

Lamb

M. R.

Knight

R. T.

(1988) Effects of lesions of temporal-parietal junction on perceptual and attentional processing in humans. Journal of Neuroscience 8(10): 3757–3769.

30.

Veale

J. F.

(2014) Edinburgh Handedness Inventory-Short Form: A revised version based on confirmatory factor analysis. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition 19(2): 164–177. doi:10.1080/1357650X.2013.783045.

31.

Volberg

Hübner

(2004) On the role of response conflicts and stimulus position for hemispheric differences in global/local processing: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia 42: 1805–1813. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.017.

32.

Volberg

Kliegl

Hanslmayr

Greenlee

M. W.

(2009) EEG alpha oscillations in the preparation for global and local processing predict behavioral performance. Human Brain Mapping 30(7): 2173–2183. doi:10.1002/hbm.20659.

33.

Volkmann

Schnitzler

Witte

O. W.

Freund

H. J.

(1998) Handedness and asymmetry of hand representation in human motor cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology 79(4): 2149–2154. doi:10.1152/jn.1998.79.4.2149.

34.

Yoshida

Yoshino

Takahashi

Nomura

(2007) Comparison of hemispheric asymmetry in global and local information processing and interference in divided and selective attention using spatial frequency filters. Experimental Brain Research 181(3): 519–529. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-0948-6.