PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 1194859

Hemispheric processing differences revealed by differential conditioning and reaction time performance.

Abstract

Two different experimental procedures were used to examine (a) information-processing differences between two groups of subjects (Cs versus Vs) identified by the form of their conditioned eyeblinks; (b) information-processing differences between the right and left cerebral hemispheres; and (c) parallels between hypothesized C-V differences and right-left hemisphere differences. In the first experiment, the evocative command words BLINK and DON'T BLINK served as positive and negative conditioned stimuli. It was found that Vs gave more conditioned eyeblinks than Cs and that differential eyelid conditioning of Vs more than Cs was influenced by the semantic content of the stimuli. More importantly, the conditioning performance of Cs was more influenced by the semantic attributes of the stimuli when they were presented directly to the right visual field (left hemisphere) than when they were presented directly to the left visual field (right hemisphere). In contrast, the conditioning performance of Vs was equally influenced by the semantic attributes regardless of which hemisphere received direct stimulation. A second experiment was designed to determine whether such hemisphere-of-presentation differences for Cs versus Vs could also be obtained in a very different task. Subjects classified as Cs or Vs during a differential eyelid conditioning task then performed two same-different reaction time (RT) tasks that required discrimination of complex polygons in one case and the names of letters in another. On each RT trial both stimuli of a pair appeared briefly either in the center, left, or right visual field. For both Cs and Vs RTs to complex polygon pairs averaged 20 msec faster on left visual field trials than on right visual field trials, consistent with current hypotheses about right-hemisphere specialization for visuospatial processing. In contrast, the results for letter pairs generally confirmed the C-V differences found in Experiment 1. That is, the right visual field (left-hemisphere) advantage for these verbal stimuli was once again larger for Cs than for Vs. The present results suggest that the two groups of subjects (Cs versus Vs) differ qualitatively in the modes of information processing that they typically employ. The results also suggest that these different modes of processing are related to aspects of cerebral hemisphere organization and that even right-handed individuals may differ from each other in the extent to which each cerebral hemisphere is mobilized for a given experimental task. Such individual differences must be incorporated into both models of classical eyelid conditioning and models of cerebral hemisphere specialization.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J B Hellige. 1975. Hemispheric processing differences revealed by differential conditioning and reaction time performance.. https://doi.org/10.1037/%2F0096-3445.104.4.309

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

On No-KR tests in motor learning, retention and transfer.

In this paper we examine the role of no-knowledge of results (KR) tests in motor learning, retention and transfer. A distinction is drawn between studies of KR and studies of other issues in motor learning that use a No-KR test. Arguments are presented against the currently received position that a No-KR test is an essential protocol to examine motor learning, although a No-KR test is most relevant in the few contexts where the outcome information is not naturally available. Perspectives are provided on the limited though proper role of No-KR tests in motor learning, retention and transfer and these are illustrated through experimental examples. It is proposed that the current restrictive interpretation of KR as only augmented outcome information is narrowing not only the context of KR research but also the study of motor learning in general.

Conditioning, Classical↗

Spatial coding in two dimensions.

There has been growing interest in exploring human performance for situations in which stimuli and/or responses vary along both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Earlier studies indicated that there is a prevalence of the horizontal dimension over the vertical dimension in the spatial codes that are used for response selection. We review evidence about spatial coding for 2-D stimulus-response sets and accounts that have been proposed for explaining how it takes place. Particular attention is devoted to the relative salience account, which provides the most comprehensive explanation of 2-D spatial coding. We also evaluate the influence of speed of spatial code formation, number of reference frames, and learning on subjects' performance in 2-D tasks.

Conditioning, Classical↗

Demonstration of cue recruitment: change in visual appearance by means of Pavlovian conditioning.

Until half a century ago, associative learning played a fundamental role in theories of perceptual appearance [Berkeley, G. (1709) An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision (Dublin), 1st Ed.]. But starting in 1955 [Gibson, J. J. & Gibson, E. J. (1955) Psychol. Rev. 62, 32-41], most studies of perceptual learning have not been concerned with association or appearance but rather with improvements in discrimination ability. Here we describe a "cue recruitment" experiment, which is a straightforward adaptation of Pavlov's classical conditioning experiment, that we used to measure changes in visual appearance caused by exposure to novel pairings of signals in visual stimuli. Trainees viewed movies of a rotating wire-frame (Necker) cube. This stimulus is perceptually bistable. On training trials, depth cues (stereo and occlusion) were added to force the perceived direction of rotation. Critically, an additional signal was also added, contingent on rotation direction. Stimuli on test trials contained the new signal but not the depth cues. Over 45 min, two of the three new signals that we tested acquired the ability to bias perceived rotation direction on their own. Results were consistent across the eight trainees in each experiment, and the new cue's effectiveness was long lasting. Whereas most adaptation aftereffects on appearance are opposite in direction to the training stimuli, these effects were positive. An individual new signal can be recruited by the visual system as a cue for the construction of visual appearance. Cue recruitment experiments may prove useful for reexamining of the role of experience in perception.

Conditioning, Classical↗