BACKGROUND: Drawing heavily on results from studies with divided visual field (dvf) presentation, current models of hemispheric differences in word semantic processing converge on a proposal (henceforth, "the standard model") that is increasingly being applied in studies of individuals with brain damage. According to this model, left hemisphere processes focus word meanings to their core, whereas right hemisphere processes keep wider representations active. AIMS: This paper has three aims: (a) to raise concerns about methodological aspects of the dvf studies that are usually cited in support for the standard model, specifically assumptions about interpretation of lateral dvf prime presentation and priming measures; (b) to highlight areas of further research and theoretical clarification, with reference to studies with central presentation and general models of word-meaning processing; and (c) to discuss the implications of these concerns for deriving a model of hemispheric differences in word-meaning processing, using evidence from paired word priming studies as an example. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: The paper discusses problematic assumptions about paired word priming studies of hemispheric contributions to word semantic processing and proposes further research to clarify these assumptions. Furthermore, it introduces an alternative interpretation of the available data, which provides a more parsimonious account of hemispheric engagement in the paired word semantic priming task. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence about hemispheric differences in word-meaning processing is far from conclusive. It is important to consider alternative interpretations of the available evidence when applying models based on this evidence to the study of language disorders. The alternative account proposed in this paper suggests that LH processing, rather than generally reducing activated word meanings to their core, is important for maintaining meanings that are unambiguous and consistent.
BACKGROUND: Drawing heavily on results from studies with divided visual field (dvf) presentation, current models of hemispheric differences in word semantic processing converge on a proposal (henceforth, "the standard model") that is increasingly being applied in studies of individuals with brain damage. According to this model, left hemisphere processes focus word meanings to their core, whereas right hemisphere processes keep wider representations active. AIMS: This paper has three aims: (a) to raise concerns about methodological aspects of the dvf studies that are usually cited in support for the standard model, specifically assumptions about interpretation of lateral dvf prime presentation and priming measures; (b) to highlight areas of further research and theoretical clarification, with reference to studies with central presentation and general models of word-meaning processing; and (c) to discuss the implications of these concerns for deriving a model of hemispheric differences in word-meaning processing, using evidence from paired word priming studies as an example. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: The paper discusses problematic assumptions about paired word priming studies of hemispheric contributions to word semantic processing and proposes further research to clarify these assumptions. Furthermore, it introduces an alternative interpretation of the available data, which provides a more parsimonious account of hemispheric engagement in the paired word semantic priming task. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence about hemispheric differences in word-meaning processing is far from conclusive. It is important to consider alternative interpretations of the available evidence when applying models based on this evidence to the study of language disorders. The alternative account proposed in this paper suggests that LH processing, rather than generally reducing activated word meanings to their core, is important for maintaining meanings that are unambiguous and consistent.
Authors: Carrie R McDonald; Russell M Bauer; J Vincent Filoteo; Laura Grande; Steven N Roper; Robert J Buchanan; Robin Gilmore Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Margaret Lehman Blake; Connie A Tompkins; Victoria L Scharp; Kimberly M Meigh; Julie Wambaugh Journal: Neuropsychol Rehabil Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 2.868