Evaluating the performance of the visual half field paradigm as a screening tool to detect right hemispheric language dominance

Atypical lateralization of visuospatial attention can be associated with better or worse performance on line bisection

The causal and statistical hypotheses diverge in determining whether the lateralization of language function in one cerebral hemisphere entails the lateralization of visuospatial function in the opposite hemisphere. Additionally, it remains unclear if the atypical segregation of these functions could influence cognitive performance. This study addresses these questions by examining the hemispheric lateralization of visuospatial attention during a line bisection judgement (landmark) task in three groups of healthy non-right-handed individuals with different language production segregations: left (typical), ambilateral (atypical), and right (atypical). Consistent with the causal hypothesis, results indicate that the groups with left and right language lateralization primarily utilize the opposite hemisphere for visuospatial attention. The ambilateral group, however, displays a pattern compatible with an independent segregation, supporting the statistical hypothesis. Behavioral analyses reveal that atypical lateralization of visuospatial attention (non-right) can lead to either better or worse performance during the landmark task, depending on the specific pattern. Bilateral organization is associated with reduced overall accuracy, whereas the left segregation results in improved performance during the most challenging trials. These findings suggest the existence of diverse pathways to lateralization, akin to either the causal or statistical hypothesis, which can result in cognitive advantages or disadvantages.

Exploring cerebral laterality of writing and the relationship to handedness: a functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound investigation

Cerebral lateralization of oral language has been investigated in a plethora of studies and it is well established that the left hemisphere is dominant for production tasks in the majority of individuals. However, few studies have focused on written language and even fewer have sampled left-handers. Writing comprises language and motor components, both of which contribute to cerebral activation, yet previous research has not disentangled. The aim of this study was to disentangle the language and motor components of writing lateralization. This was achieved through the comparison of cerebral activation during (i) written word generation and (ii) letter copying, as assessed by functional Transcranial Doppler (fTCD) ultrasound. We further assessed cerebral laterality of oral language. The sample was balanced for handedness. We preregistered the hypotheses that (i) cerebral lateralization of the linguistic component of writing would be weaker in left-handers compared to right-handers and (ii) oral language and the linguistic component of written language would not be correlated in terms of cerebral lateralization. No compelling evidence for either of our hypotheses was found. Findings highlight the complexity of the processes subserving written and oral language as well as the methodological challenges to isolate the linguistic component of writing.

Analysis of distributions reveals real differences on dichotic listening scores between left- and right-handers

About 95% of right-handers and 70% of left-handers have a left-hemispheric specialization for language. Dichotic listening is often used as an indirect measure of this language asymmetry. However, while it reliably produces a right-ear advantage (REA), corresponding to the left-hemispheric specialization of language, it paradoxically often fails to obtain statistical evidence of mean differences between left- and right-handers. We hypothesized that non-normality of the underlying distributions might be in part responsible for the similarities in means. Here, we compare the mean ear advantage scores, and also contrast the distributions at multiple quantiles, in two large independent samples (Ns = 1,358 and 1,042) of right-handers and left-handers. Right-handers had an increased mean REA, and a larger proportion had an REA than in the left-handers. We also found that more left-handers are represented in the left-eared end of the distribution. These data suggest that subtle shifts in the distributions of DL scores for right- and left-handers may be at least partially responsible for the unreliability of significantly reduced mean REA in left-handers.

Lateralized reading in the healthy brain: A behavioral and computational study on the nature of the visual field effect

Despite its widespread use to measure functional lateralization of language in healthy subjects, the neurocognitive bases of the visual field effect in lateralized reading are still debated. Crucially, the lack of knowledge on the nature of the visual field effect is accompanied by a lack of knowledge on the relative impact of psycholinguistic factors on its measurement, thus potentially casting doubts on its validity as a functional laterality measure. In this study, an eye-tracking-controlled tachistoscopic lateralized lexical decision task (Experiment 1) was administered to 60 right-handed and 60 left-handed volunteers and word length, orthographic neighborhood, word frequency, and imageability were manipulated. The magnitude of visual field effect was bigger in right-handed than in left-handed participants. Across the whole sample, a visual field-by-frequency interaction was observed, whereby a comparatively smaller effect of word frequency was detected in the left visual field/right hemisphere (LVF/RH) than in the right visual field/left hemisphere (RVF/LH). In a subsequent computational study (Experiment 2), efficient (LH) and inefficient (RH) activation of lexical orthographic nodes was modelled by means of the Naïve Discriminative Learning approach. Computational data simulated the effect of visual field and its interaction with frequency observed in the Experiment 1. Data suggest that the visual field effect can be biased by word frequency. Less distinctive connections between orthographic cues and lexical/semantic output units in the RH than in the LH can account for the emergence of the visual field effect and its interaction with word frequency.

Attention and Interhemispheric Communication: Implications for Language Dominance

Dominance of the left hemisphere for language processing is a prominent feature of brain organisation. Whereas structural models clarify the functional asymmetry due to direct access to local language circuits, dynamic models propose functional states of intrahemispheric activation and interhemispheric inhibition that are coupled with attentional processes. Real word settings often require modulations of lateralised neural processing and further express individual heterogeneity. In this research, we tested left- and right-handers, and used a behavioural paradigm with presentation of lateralised cue-target pairs to the same or opposite visual field. We observed that handedness distinctly affected word processing in the left hemisphere following contralateral cueing. Moreover, left-hemispheric dominance strengthened for right-handers vs abolished for left-handers, influencing behavioural efficiency. In combination with eye dominance recordings, these data suggest that attentional biases guided the processing strategies of both groups and in turn their achievements. Therefore, hand and eye dominance are both essential factors with a functional role in directing the communication of visual information between both hemispheres. Overall, the findings underline the importance of interacting hand-eye control systems in contributing to interhemispheric patterns in the context of language processing.