Literature DB >> 11228909

Competition-induced visual field differences in search.

J H Fecteau1, J T Enns, A Kingstone.   

Abstract

Do visual field effects point to differences in cortical representation, or do they reflect differences in the way these representations are used by other brain regions? This study explored three attributes of visual search that provide strong evidence in favor of differences in use. Competition refers to the finding that visual field differences in search efficiency are larger in whole- than in half-field displays (both left-right and upper-lower half-fields). Task specialization refers to the finding that some tasks favor one hemisphere whereas other tasks favor the other hemisphere, even though the same stimulus displays are used in both tasks. Anatomical alignment refers to the finding that competition effects are altered if the quadrants of the visual display are not aligned with the cortical quadrants of the observer. We propose that visual field specialization in search is the result of a competition involving limited access to cortical visual representations by the extended neural networks of attention.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11228909     DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00275

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  10 in total

1.  Hemispheric performance in object-based attention.

Authors:  Monica A Valsangkar-Smyth; Christa-Lynn Donovan; Scott Sinnett; Michael R W Dawson; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-02

2.  Differential age-related changes in localizing a target among distractors across an extended visual field.

Authors:  Jing Feng; Fergus I M Craik; Brian Levine; Sylvain Moreno; Gary Naglie; HeeSun Choi
Journal:  Eur J Ageing       Date:  2016-10-11

3.  Asymmetry in Gaze Direction Discrimination Between the Upper and Lower Visual Fields.

Authors:  Adam Palanica; Roxane J Itier
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 1.490

4.  Representational momentum reveals visual anticipation differences in the upper and lower visual fields.

Authors:  Victoria M Gottwald; Gavin P Lawrence; Amy E Hayes; Michael A Khan
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Cuing effects of faces are dependent on handedness and visual field.

Authors:  Emma Ferneyhough; Damian A Stanley; Elizabeth A Phelps; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-08

6.  Dynamic upper and lower visual field preferences within the human dorsal frontoparietal attention network.

Authors:  Antje Kraft; Wieland H Sommer; Sein Schmidt; Stephan A Brandt
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Exploring What's Missing: What Do Target Absent Trials Reveal About Autism Search Superiority?

Authors:  Brandon Keehn; Robert M Joseph
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2016-05

8.  Face-sex categorization is better above fixation than below: Evidence from the reach-to-touch paradigm.

Authors:  Genevieve L Quek; Matthew Finkbeiner
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.526

9.  Gaining the upper hand: evidence of vertical asymmetry in sex-categorisation of human hands.

Authors:  Genevieve L Quek; Matthew Finkbeiner
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2014-12-31

10.  Evidence for a common mechanism of spatial attention and visual awareness: Towards construct validity of pseudoneglect.

Authors:  Jiaqing Chen; Jagjot Kaur; Hana Abbas; Ming Wu; Wenyi Luo; Sinan Osman; Matthias Niemeier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.