Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Effects of stimulus pair orientation and hand switching on reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transfer

Effects of stimulus pair orientation and hand switching on reaction time estimates of... Two behavioral estimates of interhemispheric transfer time, the crossed-uncrossed difference (CUD) and the unilateral field advantage (UFA), are thought to, respectively, index transfer of premotor and visual information across the corpus callosum in neurotypical participants. However, no attempt to manipulate visual and motor contingencies in a set of tasks while measuring the CUD and the UFA has yet been reported. In two go/no-go comparison experiments, stimulus pair orientations were manipulated. The hand of response changed after each correct response in the second, but not the first experiment. No correlation was found between the CUD and the UFA, supporting the hypothesis that these two measures index different types of information transfer across hemispheres. An effect of manipulation of stimulus pair orientation on UFAs was attributed to the homotopy of callosal fibers transferring visual information, while an effect of hand switching on CUDs was attributed mostly to spatial compatibility. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Experimental Brain Research Springer Journals

Effects of stimulus pair orientation and hand switching on reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transfer

Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/effects-of-stimulus-pair-orientation-and-hand-switching-on-reaction-318zEgXWv4
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
Subject
Biomedicine; Neurosciences; Neurology
ISSN
0014-4819
eISSN
1432-1106
DOI
10.1007/s00221-018-5243-1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Two behavioral estimates of interhemispheric transfer time, the crossed-uncrossed difference (CUD) and the unilateral field advantage (UFA), are thought to, respectively, index transfer of premotor and visual information across the corpus callosum in neurotypical participants. However, no attempt to manipulate visual and motor contingencies in a set of tasks while measuring the CUD and the UFA has yet been reported. In two go/no-go comparison experiments, stimulus pair orientations were manipulated. The hand of response changed after each correct response in the second, but not the first experiment. No correlation was found between the CUD and the UFA, supporting the hypothesis that these two measures index different types of information transfer across hemispheres. An effect of manipulation of stimulus pair orientation on UFAs was attributed to the homotopy of callosal fibers transferring visual information, while an effect of hand switching on CUDs was attributed mostly to spatial compatibility.

Journal

Experimental Brain Research – Springer Journals

Published: Mar 26, 2018

References

  • Spatial stimulus – response compatibility in callosotomy patients and subjects with callosal agenesis
    Aglioti, S; Tassinari, G; Berlucchi, G
  • Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction time
    Anzola, GP; Bertoloni, G; Buchtel, HA; Rizzolatti, G
  • Interhemispheric interaction: how do hemispheres divide and conquer a task?
    Banich, MT; Belger, A
  • Interhemispheric interaction affected by computational complexity
    Belger, A; Banich, MT
  • Simple reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized visual stimuli
    Berlucchi, G; Heron, W; Hyman, R; Rizzolatti, G; Umiltà, AG
  • Influence of spatial stimulus—response compatibility on reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized light stimuli
    Berlucchi, G; Crea, F; Stefano, M; Tassinari, G
  • The divided visual field paradigm: Methodological considerations
    Bourne, VJ
  • Estimation of interhemispheric dynamics from simple unilateral reaction time to extrafoveal stimuli
    Braun, CMJ
  • The “Poffenberger” and “Dimond” paradigms: interrelated approaches to the study of interhemispheric dynamics?
    Braun, CMJ; Collin, I; Mailloux, C
  • Experimental disentangling of spatial-compatibility and interhemispheric-relay effects in simple reaction time (Poffenberger paradigm)
    Braun, CMJ; Larocque, C; Achim, A
  • New variations of intrahemispheric and interhemispheric processing indexed by the Dimond paradigm
    Braun, CMJ; Achim, A; Gauvin, G; Desjardins, S; Roberge, C; Suffren, S
  • Callosal sensitivity to short-range stimulus orientation and long-range stimulus context orientation: tachistoscopic evidence
    Braun, CMJ; Achim, A; Roberge, C; Gauvin, G
  • Bilateral visual field processing and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission time
    Brown, WS; Jeeves, MA
  • Interhemispheric transfer in normals and acallosals: latency adjusted evoked potential averaging
    Brown, WS; Bjerke, MD; Galbraith, GC
  • Bilateral field advantage and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission in commissurotomy and callosal agenesis
    Brown, WS; Jeeves, MA; Dietrich, R; Burnison, DS
  • Simple reaction times to lateralized flashes: varieties of interhemispheric communication routes
    Clarke, JM; Zaidel, E
  • A choice reaction time index of callosal anatomical homotopy
    Desjardins, S; Braun, CMJ; Achim, A; Roberge, C
  • Influence of anatomical factors and spatial compatibility on the stimulus-response relationship in the absence of the corpus callosum
    Stefano, M; Saurerwein, HC; Lassonde, M
  • Hemisphere function and immediate memory
    Dimond, SJ
  • Long-term reliability of the visual EEG Poffenberger paradigm
    Friedrich, P; Ocklenburg, S; Mochalski, L; Schlüter, C; Güntürkün, O; Genc, E
  • Symbolic control of visual attention
    Hommel, B; Pratt, J; Colzato, L; Godijn, R
  • Channels of the corpus callosum: Evidence from simple reaction times to lateralized flashes in the normal and the split brain
    Iacoboni, M; Zaidel, E
  • Refutation of Poffenberger’s inference: An existence proof and a countermodel
    Larocque, C; Achim, A; Braun, CMJ
  • Bilateral field interactions, hemispheric specialization and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission time
    Larson, EB; Brown, WS
  • Intra and inter hemispheric dynamics revealed by reaction time in the Dimond paradigm: a quantitative review of the literature
    Leblanc-Sirois, Y; Braun, CMJ
  • Inter-hemispheric dynamics revealed by reaction time in the Dimond paradigm
    Leblanc-Sirois, Y; Braun, CMJ
  • The effects of stimulus intensity on visual evoked potential estimates of interhemispheric transmission time
    Lines, CR; Rugg, MD; Milner, AD
  • Is interhemispheric transfer of visuomotor information asymmetric? Evidence from a meta-analysis
    Marzi, CA; Bisiacchi, P; Nicoletti, R
  • Interhemispheric pathways in simple reaction time to lateralized light flash
    Milner, AD; Lines, CR
  • Reaction time to retinal stimulation with special reference to the time lost in conduction through nerve centers
    Poffenberger, AT
  • Further investigation of visual evoked potentials elicited by lateralized stimuli: Effects of stimulus eccentricity and reference site
    Rugg, MD; Lines, CR; Milner, AD
  • Visual evoked potential measures of interhemispheric transfer time in humans
    Saron, CD; Davidson, RJ
  • Interhemispheric transfer following callosotomy in humans: role of the superior colliculus
    Savazzi, S; Fabri, M; Rubboli, G; Paggi, A; Tassinari, CA; Marzi, CA
  • Evidence for motor-level transfer in a simple reaction time task: an EEG study
    Thut, G; Hauert, C-A; Morand, S; Seeck, M; Landis, T; Michel, C
  • Cerebral hemisphere asymmetry
    Zaidel, E