Elsevier

Brain and Cognition

Volume 66, Issue 2, March 2008, Pages 168-175
Brain and Cognition

Hemispheric asymmetries for temporal information processing: Transient detection versus sustained monitoring

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2007.07.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This study investigated functional differences in the processing of visual temporal information between the left and right hemispheres (LH and RH). Participants indicated whether or not a checkerboard pattern contained a temporal gap lasting between 10 and 40 ms. When the stimulus contained a temporal signal (i.e. a gap), responses were more accurate for the right visual field-left hemisphere (RVF-LH) than for the left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH). This RVF-LH advantage was larger for the shorter gap durations (Experiments 1 and 2), suggesting that the LH has finer temporal resolution than the RH, and is efficient for transient detection. In contrast, for noise trials (i.e. trial without temporal signals), there was a LVF-RH advantage. This LVF-RH advantage was observed when the entire stimulus duration was long (240 ms, Experiment 1), but was eliminated when the duration was short (120 ms, Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, where the gap was placed toward the end of the stimulus presentation, a LVF-RH advantage was found for noise trials whereas the RVF-LH advantage was eliminated for signal trials. It is likely that participants needed to monitor the stimulus for a longer period of time when the gap was absent (i.e. noise trials) or was placed toward the end of the presentation. The RH may therefore be more efficient in the sustained monitoring of visual temporal information whereas the LH is more efficient for transient detection.

Introduction

There is a growing consensus that the left hemisphere (LH) has a capacity for finer visual temporal resolution than does the right hemisphere (RH). The LH advantage in temporal resolution has been found for a broad range of tasks, including: Flicker fusion (Goldman, Lodge, Hammer, Semmes, & Mishkin, 1968), perception of simultaneity (e.g. Efron, 1963, Nicholls, 1994a, Nicholls, 1994b), temporal gap detection (Nicholls, 1994a, Nicholls, 1994b), inspection time (Elias et al., 1999, Nicholls and Cooper, 1991, Okubo and Nicholls, 2005) and temporal order judgments (Swisher & Hirsh, 1972). The LH temporal processing advantage is also observed within the auditory and tactual modalities (Nicholls, 1996).

While the majority of temporal processing tasks yield a reliable LH advantage, there are notable exceptions. For example, Funnell, Corballis, and Gazzaniga (2003) required a split-brain patient to report whether the offset of two circles was simultaneous or not. For offset asynchronies ranging from 35 to 59 ms, a consistent left visual field (LVF) (hence RH) advantage was observed. This result contrasts with the data reported by Nicholls (1994a). In this case, normal participants judged whether the onset of two LEDs was simultaneous or successive. For stimulus onset asynchronies ranging from 10 to 25 ms, a consistent right visual field (RVF) (hence LH) advantage was observed.

One could argue that the results of Funnell et al. (2003) are specific to split-brain populations and are therefore not typical of the broader population. It is possible, however, that the discrepancy reflects more interesting methodological differences between the studies. One such difference relates to whether the simultaneity judgment was made for the offset or the onset of the stimuli. In the study by Funnell et al. (2003), participants detected the offset of a stimulus within a 250 ms presentation period. Thus participants were required to monitor the stimulus and to withhold their response. In contrast, Nicholls (1994a) required participants to detect differences in the onset of two stimuli. This version of simultaneity judgment did not require sustained monitoring or response restraint. In addition, the asynchronies in offset/onset between the stimuli are shorter in Nicholls (1994a) (10–25 ms) than Funnell et al. (2003) (35–59 ms). Bearing these points in mind, the critical difference between the two studies may be the period of time over which the stimuli are presented. Thus, the study by Funnell et al. (2003) may have been better suited to sustained monitoring, which can be defined as an ability to monitor relatively slow or sustained temporal change occurring over time. In contrast, the study by Nicholls (1994a) may have better suited to transient detection, which can be defined as an ability to detect rapid or transient temporal change in a visual scene.

If the capacity for sustained monitoring and transient detection were differentially lateralized, it could explain the discrepancy between the studies by Funnell et al. (2003) and Nicholls (1994a). To investigate this issue, we conducted three visual half-field experiments using a temporal gap detection task to test the hypothesis that the LH and RH are specialized in transient detection and sustained monitoring, respectively.

According to the previous studies (Nicholls, 1994a, Nicholls, 1994b), the transient detection mechanisms in the LH may be better suited to process 10–25 ms temporal differences in the gap detection task. On the other hand, the sustained monitoring may be better suited to process much longer period of time. The time course of visual sustained attention, which is defined as a voluntary allocation of visual attention usually induced slowly by symbols (e.g. an arrow) and/or instruction, may provide critical information for the temporal characteristics of sustained monitoring because the allocation of visual sustained attention is indispensable to monitor the event lasting for relatively long time. Using Posner’s (1980) attentional cueing paradigm, Müller and Rabbitt (1989) examined the time course of visual sustained attention, and found that the facilitative effect of sustained attention arose around 100 ms after the onset of an attentional arrow cue. The size of facilitation steadily increased until at 275 ms after the cue onset, and kept a stable level for a longer period of time. In Müller and Rabbitt (1989), the attentional cue was virtually ineffective at 100 ms but was effective at 175 ms. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the sustained monitoring is effective 175 ms after an onset of an event.

Section snippets

Experiment 1

In Experiment 1, gap duration was varied from 10 to 40 ms in a visual stimulus lasting 240 ms. For the detection of temporal signals (i.e. a gap), a RVF-LH advantage was predicted because the task requires fine temporal resolution. This RVF-LH was expected to be especially pronounced for the shorter gap durations. In contrast, the detection of noise trials (i.e. trials without gaps) required participants to monitor the stimulus for 240 ms. This sustained monitoring was expected to favor the

Experiment 2

Experiment 1 assumed that the prolonged stimulus duration (240 ms) would place more demand on sustained monitoring for the noise trials because participants needed to monitor the stimuli for a longer period of time. Following this logic, shorter stimulus durations should place less demand on sustained monitoring for the noise trials. To test this hypothesis, this study reduced stimulus duration to 120 ms. If the asymmetry is determined by stimulus duration, the LVF-RH advantage for the noise

Experiment 3

In contrast to Experiment 2, which made less demand on sustained monitoring, Experiment 3 made more demand on it. As was the case for Experiment 1, the exposure duration was 240 ms. Unlike the first two experiments, however, the gap was placed toward the end of the stimulus presentation rather than in the middle (i.e. a 60 ms shift in the gap onset from Experiment 1 to Experiment 3). Because of this 60 ms shift, more observation time would be needed to detect a gap in the signal stimulus. It is

General discussion

The present set of experiments tested the hypothesis that the LH is specialized for transient detection whereas the RH is specialized for sustained monitoring. In line with previous research (for a review Nicholls, 1996), a RVF-LH advantage emerged when the temporal processing task favored transient detection (Experiments 1 and 2). In contrast, when participants were required to observe the stimuli for a longer period of time, a LVF-RH advantage was observed (Experiments 1 and 3)—suggesting a

References (35)

  • M. Rebaï et al.

    Spatial frequency and right hemisphere: An electrophysiological investigation

    Brain and Cognition

    (1998)
  • L. Swisher et al.

    Brain damage and the ordering of two temporally successive stimuli

    Neuropsychologia

    (1972)
  • R.J. Zatorre et al.

    Structure and function of auditory cortex: Music and speech

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences

    (2002)
  • G.J. Bradshow et al.

    Lexical discrimination and letter string identification in the two visual fields

    Brain and Language

    (1979)
  • D.H. Brainard

    The psychophysics toolbox

    Spatial Vision

    (1997)
  • R. Efron

    The effect of handedness on the perception of simultaneity and temporal order

    Brain

    (1963)
  • A. Grabowska et al.

    Asymmetries in visual evoked potentials to gratings registered in the two hemispheres of the human brain

    Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis

    (1992)
  • Cited by (18)

    • Attentional asymmetry in orienting and alertness and its relationship to temperament: A longitudinal study of infants aged 6–24 months

      2022, Infant Behavior and Development
      Citation Excerpt :

      Moreover, warning signals have been used as a way of reducing neglect of the left visual field in patients with right parietal lesions (Robertson et al., 1998). Although greater involvement of the left hemisphere in the processing of warning cues has also been reported (Fan et al., 2005; Okubo & Nicholls, 2008; Sturm & Willmes, 2001), the exact reasons for differences in hemispheric specialization reported in tonic and phasic studies are still unknown (Posner, 2008). One possibility is that increasing alertness by a warning signal will preferentially activate the right parietal cortex, raising activity in this hemisphere, speeding up responses, and driving attention leftward.

    • Hemispheric asymmetry of chromatic motion perception

      2022, Vision Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      It has been argued that some of the hemispheric asymmetries might be explained by a preferential projection of the magnocellular or parvocellular pathways to one or the other hemispheres (Kosslyn et al., 1992). However, some researchers have questioned the visual pathway hypothesis (Hellige, 1997; Hellige & Cumberland, 2001; Okubo & Nicholls, 2005, 2008; Roth & Hellige, 1998) as there have been no reports as yet, of lateral asymmetries in the projection of magnocellular and parvocellular neural pathways. Rather, Nassi, Lyon, and Callaway (2006) showed that the dorsal pathway, including the middle temporal (MT or V5) region, receives input from both magno- and parvo-cells.

    • Advantage of detecting visual events in the right hemifield is affected by reading skill

      2020, Vision Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      A substantial body of previous literature reported an advantage in the right visual field for the processing of static visual events (Rezaul Karim & Kojima, 2010 for a review). Our results along with other reports extend this RVF-LH advantage for the detection of fine temporal events (Levy et al., 2010; Nicholls, 1994b, 1994a; Okubo & Nicholls, 2008). The 32% RVF advantage we found for processing motion speed increase, however, exceeds the effects in these previous reports.

    • Lateralization of spatial rather than temporal attention underlies the left hemifield advantage in rapid serial visual presentation

      2017, Brain and Cognition
      Citation Excerpt :

      Battelli, Pascual-Leone, and Cavanagh (2007) have suggested that temporal/transient attention is controlled in both VFs by the right inferior parietal lobe (IPL), a crucial node for the processing of the temporal dimension (termed by those authors the ‘when’ pathway). Furthermore, the RH advantage in temporal processing is more likely to become evident when a task requires sustained temporal monitoring (Okubo & Nicholls, 2008; Whitehead, 1991), which is the case in the RSVP task. Finally, there is evidence from lesion (Husain, Shapiro, Martin, & Kennard, 1997), transcranial magnetic stimulation or TMS (Cooper, Humphreys, Hulleman, Praamstra, & Georgeson, 2004), and fMRI imaging studies (Marois, Chun, & Gore, 2000) suggesting a critical role of the right intraparietal sulcus (IPS) in target selection during the attentional blink period.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

    View full text