Two major classes of hypothesis have been advanced to account for visual laterality differences. One stresses the importance of factors in determining an attentional scanning of the stimulus traces; a second emphasizes functional differences between the cerebral hemispheres. In a recent series of experiments McKeever and Huling have concluded that cerebral dominance factors offer a sufficient explanation for visual laterality differences. A review of McKeever and Huling's findings and of other relevant experiments shows that something more than cerebral dominance is required to account for tachistoscopic laterality effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrydenM. P.Tachistoscopic recognition of non-alphabetical material. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1960, 14, 78–86.
2.
BrydenM. P.Accuracy and order of report in tachistoscopic recognition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1966, 20, 262–272. (a)
3.
BrydenM. P.Left-right differences in tachistoscopic recognition: Directional scanning or cerebral dominance?Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 23, 1127–1134. (b)
4.
BrydenM. P.A model for the sequential organization of behavior. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1967, 21, 37–56.
5.
CroslandH. R.Letter-position effects, in the range of attention experiment, as affected by the number of letters in each exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1931, 14, 477–507.
6.
CrovitzH. F.SchiffmanH.LipscombD. B.PosnickG.ReesJ.SchaubR.TrippR.Identification and localization in the letter span. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1966, 20, 455–461.
7.
DouglasB.Left-right differences and order of report in tachistoscopic recognition. Unpublished M. A. thesis, Univer. of Auckland, 1968.
8.
GazzanigaM. S.The bisected brain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.
9.
HarcumE. R.Visual hemifield differences as conflicts in direction of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 479–480.
10.
HarcumE. R.Lateral dominance as a determinant of temporal order or responding. In KinsbourneM. (Ed.), Hemispheric asymmetry of function. London: Tavistock, 1972, in press.
11.
HarcumE. R.FinkelM. E.Explanation of Mishkin and Forgays' result as a directional-reading conflict. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1963, 17, 224–234.
12.
HeronW.Perception as a function of retinal locus and attention. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 38–48.
13.
KimuraD.The effect of letter position on recognition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1959, 13, 1–10.
14.
KimuraD.Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1961, 15, 166–171.
15.
KimuraD.Dual functional asymmetry of the brain in visual perception. Neuropsychologia, 1966, 4, 275–285.
16.
KimuraD.Functional asymmetry of the brain in dichotic listening. Cortex, 1967, 3, 163–178.
17.
MathewsonJ. W.MillerJ. C.CrovitzH. F.The letter span in space and time. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 11, 69–70.
18.
McKeeverW. F.Lateral word recognition: Effects of unilateral and bilateral presentation, asynchrony of bilateral presentation, and forced order of report. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 23, 410–416.
19.
McKeeverW. F.HulingM. D.Lateral dominance in tachistoscopic word recognitions of children at two levels of ability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 22, 600–604. (a)
20.
McKeeverW. F.HulingM. D.Left-cerebral hemisphere superiority in tachistoscopic word-recognition performances. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 30, 763–766. (b)
21.
McKeeverW. F.HulingM. D.Bilateral tachistoscopic word recognition as a function of hemisphere stimulated and inter-hemispheric transfer time. Neuropsychologia, 1971, 9, 281–288. (a)
22.
McKeeverW. F.HulingM. D.Lateral dominance in tachiscoscopic word recognition performances obtained with simultaneous bilateral input. Neuropsychologia, 1971, 9, 15–20. (b)
23.
MewhortD. J. K.Sequential redundancy and letter spacing as determinants of tachistoscopic recognition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1966, 20, 435–444.
24.
NeillD. O.SampsonH.GribbenJ. A.Hemiretinal effects in tachistoscopic letter recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 91, 129–135.
25.
SaslowM. G.Latency for saccadic eye movement. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1967, 57, 1030–1033.
26.
ScheererE.Simultane und sukzessive Informationsverarbeitung bei der Identifikation visueller Reizmuster. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ruhr-Universitæt Bochum, 1970.
27.
WhiteM. J.Identification and localization within digit and letter spans. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 14, 279–280. (a)
28.
WhiteM. J.Laterality differences in perception: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 387–405. (b)
29.
WhiteM. J.Order of report and letter structure in tachistoscopic recognition. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 17, 364–365. (c)
30.
WhiteM. J.Visual field differences and the recognition of alphanumeric material. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1969, 21, 311–317. (d)
31.
WhiteM. J.Retinal locus and the letter span error function. Perception and Psychophysics, 1970, 8, 107–109.
32.
WhiteM. J.Hemispheric asymmetries in tachistoscopic information-processing. British Journal of Psychology, 1972, 63, 497–508. (a)
33.
WhiteM. J.Vocal and manual response latencies to bilateral and unilateral tachistoscopic letter displays. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, in press. (b)
