Dataset Information

Sinistrals are rarely "right": evidence from tool-affordance processing in visual half-field paradigms.

ABSTRACT: Although current neuroscience and behavioral studies provide substantial understanding of tool representations (e.g., the processing of tool-related affordances) in the human brain, most of this knowledge is limited to right-handed individuals with typical organization of cognitive and manual skills. Therefore, any insights from these lines of research may be of little value in rehabilitation of patients with atypical laterality of praxis and/or hand dominance. To fill this gap, we tested perceptual processing of man-made objects in 18 healthy left-handers who were likely to show greater incidence of right-sided or bilateral (atypical) lateralization of functions. In the two experiments reported here, participants performed a tool vs. non-tool categorization task. In Experiment 1, target and distracter objects were presented for 200 ms in the left (LVF) or right (RVF) visual field, followed by 200 ms masks. In Experiment 2, the centrally presented targets were preceded by masked primes of 35 ms duration, again presented in the LVF or RVF. Based on results from both studies, i.e., response times (RTs) to correctly discriminated stimuli irrespective of their category, participants were divided into two groups showing privileged processing in either left (N = 9) or right (N = 9) visual field. In Experiment 1, only individuals with RVF advantage showed significantly faster categorization of tools in their dominant visual field, whereas those with LVF advantage revealed merely a trend toward such an effect. In Experiment 2, when targets were preceded by identical primes, the "atypical" group showed significantly facilitated categorization of non-tools, whereas the "typical" group demonstrated a trend toward faster categorization of tools. These results indicate that in subjects with atypically organized cognitive skills, tool-related processes are not just mirror reversed. Thus, our outcomes call for particular caution in neurorehabilitation directed at left-handed individuals.

SUBMITTER: Michalowski B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4375976 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sinistrals are rarely "right": evidence from tool-affordance processing in visual half-field paradigms.

Michałowski Bartosz B Króliczak Gregory G

Frontiers in human neuroscience 20150327

Although current neuroscience and behavioral studies provide substantial understanding of tool representations (e.g., the processing of tool-related affordances) in the human brain, most of this knowledge is limited to right-handed individuals with typical organization of cognitive and manual skills. Therefore, any insights from these lines of research may be of little value in rehabilitation of patients with atypical laterality of praxis and/or hand dominance. To fill this gap, we tested percep ...[more]

PMID: 25870553

Similar Datasets

Project description:Audio-visual integration relies on temporal synchrony between visual and auditory inputs. However, differences in traveling and transmitting speeds between visual and auditory stimuli exist; therefore, audio-visual synchrony perception exhibits flexible functions. The processing speed of visual stimuli affects the perception of audio-visual synchrony. The present study examined the effects of visual fields, in which visual stimuli are presented, for the processing of audio-visual temporal synchrony. The point of subjective simultaneity, the temporal binding window, and the rapid recalibration effect were measured using temporal order judgment, simultaneity judgment, and stream/bounce perception, because different mechanisms of temporal processing have been suggested among these three paradigms. The results indicate that auditory stimuli should be presented earlier for visual stimuli in the central visual field than in the peripheral visual field condition in order to perceive subjective simultaneity in the temporal order judgment task conducted in this study. Meanwhile, the subjective simultaneity bandwidth was broader in the central visual field than in the peripheral visual field during the simultaneity judgment task. In the stream/bounce perception task, neither the point of subjective simultaneity nor the temporal binding window differed between the two types of visual fields. Moreover, rapid recalibration occurred in both visual fields during the simultaneity judgment tasks. However, during the temporal order judgment task and stream/bounce perception, rapid recalibration occurred only in the central visual field. These results suggest that differences in visual processing speed based on the visual field modulate the temporal processing of audio-visual stimuli. Furthermore, these three tasks, temporal order judgment, simultaneity judgment, and stream/bounce perception, each have distinct functional characteristics for audio-visual synchrony perception. Future studies are necessary to confirm the effects of compensation regarding differences in the temporal resolution of the visual field in later cortical visual pathways on visual field differences in audio-visual temporal synchrony.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To develop an appropriate method of assessing visual field (VF) loss which reflects its functional consequences, this study aims to determine which method(s) of assessing VF best reflect mobility difficulty. SETTING:This cross-sectional observational study took place within a single primary care setting. Participants attended a single session at a University Eye Clinic, Cambridge, UK, with data collected by a single researcher (HS), a qualified optometrist. PARTICIPANTS:50 adult participants with peripheral field impairment were recruited for this study. Individuals with conditions not primarily affecting peripheral visual function, such as macular degeneration, were excluded from the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Participants undertook three custom and one standard binocular VF tests assessing VF to 60°, and also integrated monocular threshold 24-2 visual fields (IVF). Primary VF outcomes were average mean threshold, percentage of stimuli seen and VF area. VF outcomes were compared with self-reported mobility function assessed with the Independent Mobility Questionnaire, and time taken and patient acceptability were also considered. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined which tests best predicted difficulty with mobility tasks. RESULTS:Greater VF loss was associated with greater self-reported mobility difficulty with all field paradigms (R2 0.38-0.48, all P<0.001). All four binocular tests were better than the IVF at predicting difficulty with at least three mobility tasks in ROC analysis. Mean duration of the tests ranged from 1?min 26?s (±9?s) for kinetic assessment to 9?min 23?s (±24?s) for IVF. CONCLUSIONS:The binocular VF tests extending to 60° eccentricity all relate similarly to self-reported mobility function, and slightly better than integrated monocular VFs. A kinetic assessment of VF area is quicker than and as effective at predicting mobility function as static threshold assessment.

Project description:PURPOSE:Assess the impact of false-positives (FP), false-negatives (FN), fixation losses (FL), and test duration (TD) on visual field (VF) reliability at different stages of glaucoma severity. DESIGN:Retrospective. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 10?262 VFs from 1538 eyes of 909 subjects with suspect or manifest glaucoma and ?5 VF examinations. METHODS:Predicted mean deviation (MD) was calculated with multilevel modeling of longitudinal data. Differences between predicted and observed MD (?MD) were calculated as a reliability measure. The impact of FP, FN, FL, and TD on ?MD was assessed using multilevel modeling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:?MD associated with a 10% increment in FP, FN, and FL, or a 1-minute increase in TD. RESULTS:FL had little impact on ?MD (<0.2 decibels [dB] per 10% abnormal catch trials), and no level of FL produced ?1 dB of ?MD at any disease stage. FP yielded greater than expected MD, with a 10% increment in abnormal catch trials associated with a ?MD = 0.42, 0.73, and 0.66 dB in mild (MD >-6 dB), moderate (-6 ?MD <-12 dB), and severe (-12 ?MD ?-20 dB) disease, respectively, up to 20% abnormal catch trials, and a ?MD = 1.57, 2.06, and 3.53 dB beyond 20% abnormal catch trials. FNs generally produced observed MDs below expected MDs. FN were minimally impactful up to 20% abnormal catch trials (?MD per 10% increment >-0.14 dB at all levels of severity). Beyond 20% abnormal catch trials, each 10% increment in abnormal catch trials was associated with a ?MD = -1.27, -0.53, and -0.51 dB in mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively. |?MD| ?1 dB occurred with 22% FP and 26% FN in early, 14% FP and 34% FN in moderate, and 16% FP and 51% FN in severe disease. A 1-minute increment in TD produced ?MDs between -0.35 and -0.40 dB. CONCLUSIONS:FL have little impact on reliability in patients with established glaucoma. FP, and to a lesser extent FNs and TD, significantly affect reliability. The impact of FP and FN varies with disease severity and over the range of abnormal catch trials. On the basis of our findings, we present evidence-based, severity-specific standards for classifying VF reliability for clinical or research applications.

Dataset Information

Sinistrals are rarely "right": evidence from tool-affordance processing in visual half-field paradigms.

Publications

Sinistrals are rarely "right": evidence from tool-affordance processing in visual half-field paradigms.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets