Intercorrelation of laterality indices.

J B Hellige; J L Zatkin; T M Wong

doi:10.1016/s0010-9452(81)80013-5

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7273797

Intercorrelation of laterality indices.

J B Hellige·J L Zatkin·T M Wong

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Five previously proposed laterality indices were found to correlate very highly with each other in both a verbal dichotic listening task and a work recognition task, despite large individual differences in overall accuracy. In the dichotic listening task, all of the laterality indices were positively correlated with overall accuracy; that is, accuracy increased as the magnitude of the laterality effect increased. In the word recognition task, however, no consistent relationship was found between laterality and accuracy.

Explore related subjects

Discrimination Learning Dominance, Cerebral Humans Psychometrics Speech Perception Visual Perception Journal Article Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J B Hellige, J L Zatkin, T M Wong. 1981. Intercorrelation of laterality indices.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(81)80013-5

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Brain potentials reflect behavioral differences in true and false recognition.

People often falsely recognize nonstudied lures that are semantically similar to previously studied words. Behavioral research suggests that such false recognition is based on high semantic overlap between studied items and lures that yield a feeling of familiarity, whereas true recognition is more often associated with the recollection of details. Despite this behavioral evidence for differences between true and false recognition, research measuring brain activity (PET, fMRI, ERP) has not clearly differentiated corresponding differences in brain activity. A median split was used to separate subjects into Good and Poor performers based on their discrimination of studied targets from similar lures. Only Good performers showed late (1000--1500 msec), right frontal event-related brain potentials (ERPs) that were more positive for targets and lures compared with new items. The right frontal differences are interpreted as reflecting postretrieval evaluation processes that were more likely to be engaged by Good than Poor performers. Both Good and Poor performers showed a parietal ERP old/new effect (400--800 msec), but only Poor performers showed a parietal old/lure difference. These results are consistent with the view that the parietal and frontal ERP old/new effects reflect dissociable processes related to recollection.

Discrimination Learning↗

PubMed2001

Haptic after-effect of successively touched curved surfaces.

A flat surface is more often judged to be convex after the touching of a concave surface than after the touching of a convex surface. This haptic after-effect increases with the time of contact with the curved surface till it saturates, and it decreases with the time-lapse between the touching of the first surface and the next one. In this paper, the haptic after-effect of two successively touched spherically curved surfaces is investigated. It is found that both surfaces contribute to the after-effect, but the after-effect is not additive. The time course of the after-effect of two successive surfaces can be described by a first-order integrator with a single time constant of about 7 s and an amplitude equal to the difference between the saturation levels of the after-effects of the two surfaces when measured in isolation. The new saturation level is therefore equal to that of the after-effect of the most recently touched surface.

Discrimination Learning↗

PubMed2001

DifScal: a tool for analyzing difference ratings on an ordinal category scale.

An algorithm for analyzing difference scaling results is described. Frequency data on ordered categories that represent perceived differences for a unidimensional psychological attribute are modeled according to Thurstone's judgment scaling model. The algorithm applies the gradient method for the maximum likelihood estimation of the model parameters. Two ways to calculate the start configuration for the model parameters are elaborated. The algorithm also provides asymptotic values for the standard errors of the estimates and three measures for the goodness of the model fit. An additional features of DifScal is that it is suited to analyze incomplete data.

Discrimination Learning↗