Since Miskin and Forgays, lateralized differences in visual information processing has largely been explained by models consistent with theories of hemispheric specialization. The present study offers an alternative explaination to account for visual half field asymmetries while elucidating past methological inadequacies characteristic of many visual half field studies.Response times and accuracy scores were examined as a function of visual half fields and visual encoding strategies. All subjects responded manually to unilateral tachistoscopic stimulus presentation. Subjects were tested under two strategy conditions: (1) subjects responded to verbal stimuli using a verbal (linguist) encoding strategy, and (2) subjects responded to verbal stimuli using a non-verbal (visio-spatial) encoding strategy.Results were consistent with earlier studies which report a right visual half field superiority to unilateral presentation of verbal stimuli. Significant differences were noted between visual half field presentation and strategy conditions. Results are discussed in terms of an alternative explaination to account for visual half field asymmetries, based heavily upon methodological considerations and visual stimulus information encoding strategy.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/181786 |
| Date | January 1978 |
| Creators | Keller, William Jefferson |
| Contributors | Davidson, Glenn S. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | 38 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds