PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 1574163

Hemispheric differences in mnemonic processing: the effects of left hemisphere interpretation.

Abstract

Several studies suggest that the abilities to make inferences and interpret events are stronger in the left hemisphere than the right hemisphere (Gazzaniga, M. S., The Social Brain. Basic Books, New York, 1985). Given that inference and interpretation are important aspects of normal memory functioning (Bartlett, F. C., Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Cambridge University Press, 1932), one would expect this hemispheric difference to extend to mnemonic processing. Two split brain subjects were shown a series of pictures representing a common scene. Their memory for these pictures was later tested with a lateralized Yes-No recognition test where the distractor pictures were either consistent or inconsistent with the scene. The left hemisphere performed below chance on consistent distractor pictures whereas the right hemisphere was above chance on these pictures and performed at the same level of accuracy as the pictures originally presented. These results suggest that recognition performance in the left hemisphere was more strongly influenced by the expectations for actions common to a scene than the right hemisphere and provide evidence that the left hemisphere superiority in interpretation and inference effect memory performance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E A Phelps, M S Gazzaniga. 1992. Hemispheric differences in mnemonic processing: the effects of left hemisphere interpretation.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(92)90006-8

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A low glycaemic index breakfast cereal preferentially prevents children's cognitive performance from declining throughout the morning.

This study investigated whether the glycaemic index (GI) of breakfast cereal differentially affects children's attention and memory. Using a balanced cross-over design, on two consecutive mornings 64 children aged 6-11 years were given a high GI cereal and a low GI cereal in a counterbalanced order. They performed a series of computerised tests of attention and memory, once prior to breakfast and three times following breakfast at hourly intervals. The results indicate that children's performance declines throughout the morning and that this decline can be significantly reduced following the intake of a low GI cereal as compared with a high GI cereal on measures of accuracy of attention (M=-6.742 and -13.510, respectively, p<0.05) and secondary memory (M=-30.675 and -47.183, respectively, p<0.05).

Attention↗

Inhibitory control test is a simple method to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare inhibitory control test (ICT), a simple/rapid test of attention, to a standard psychometric battery (SPT) to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Fifty nonalcoholic cirrhotics and 50 age/educational-status-matched controls were given ICT and SPT in the same sitting. Performance impaired beyond two standard deviations of controls was considered MHE in cirrhotics. ICT results (lure/target response and lures/person) were compared between controls and cirrhotics and within cirrhotics with/without MHE. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to study ICT for MHE diagnosis. Twenty subjects were administered SPT and ICT twice to assess test-retest reliability. All cirrhotics were followed routinely for the development of OHE. RESULTS: Cirrhotics performed worse than controls on SPT and ICT. Using SPT, 39 cirrhotics had MHE. ICT was administered faster than SPT (15 vs 37 min). Cirrhotics with MHE had significantly higher lure (28%vs 3%) and lower target response (91%vs 96%) compared with those without MHE. Lure/person >5 had 90% sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis. AUC for receiver-operating characteristic for lures alone was 95.8%. Lure and target responses were highly correlated (r= 0.9) between sessions showing high test-retest reliability. Five (10%) patients developed OHE on f/u of 26 +/- 10 months; all five had been diagnosed with MHE using ICT and SPT. None of the five patients with discordant results on SPT and ICT developed OHE. CONCLUSIONS: ICT has good sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis, is reliable and is equivalent to SPT for predicting OHE development.

Attention↗