Lateralization of spatial categories: A comparison of verbal and visuospatial categorical relations

Many reports show that spatial relations between and within objects show differences in hemispheric lateralization. Coordinate, metric relations concerning distances are processed with a right-hemisphere advantage, whereas a left-hemisphere advantage is thought to be related to categorical, abstract relations (Kosslyn, 1987). Kemmerer and Tranel (2000) argued that the left-hemisphere advantage for categorical processing might apply only for verbal spatial categories, however, whereas a right-hemisphere advantage is related to visuospatial categories. To test this idea, we examined categorical processing for stimuli in both verbal and visuospatial formats, with a visual half-field, match-to-sample design. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the format of the second stimulus to compare response patterns for both verbal and visuospatial stimuli. In Experiment 2, we varied the expectancy of the format of the second stimulus, allowing for an assessment of strategy use. The results showed that a left-hemisphere advantage was related to verbal stimulus format only, but not in all conditions. A right-hemisphere advantage was found only with a visuospatial expectancy, visuospatial format, and brief interval. The theory we present to explain these results proposes that the lateralization related to basic categorical processing can be strongly influenced by verbal characteristics and, to some extent, by additional coordinate processing. The lateralization measured in such cases does not represent lateralization related purely to categorical processing, but to these additional effects as well. This stresses the importance of careful task and stimulus design when examining categorical processing in order to reduce the influence of those additional processes.

[1]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Pictorial and verbal encoding in a short-term memory task , 1969 .

[2]  Bruno Laeng,et al.  Cerebral lateralization for the processing of spatial coordinates and categories in left- and right-handers , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  Y. Burnod,et al.  Is there continuity between categorical and coordinate spatial relations coding? Evidence from a grid/no-grid working memory paradigm , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  The Neural Bases of Strategy and Skill in Sentence–Picture Verification , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  L. Hedges,et al.  Categories and particulars: prototype effects in estimating spatial location. , 1991, Psychological review.

[6]  David J. Gilmore,et al.  The sentence—picture verification task: Methodological and theoretical difficulties , 1994 .

[7]  D. Tranel,et al.  A DOUBLE DISSOCIATION BETWEEN LINGUISTIC AND PERCEPTUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[8]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Mental operations in the comparison of sentences and pictures. , 1972 .

[9]  S. Neggers,et al.  Spatial tapping interferes with the processing of linguistic spatial relations. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[10]  J. Hellige,et al.  Categorization versus distance: Hemispheric differences for processing spatial information , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[11]  B. Tversky.  Retrieval of pictorial and verbal stimulus codes , 1974 .

[12]  S. Kosslyn.  Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: a computational approach. , 1987, Psychological review.

[13]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  On the process of comparing sentences against pictures , 1972 .

[14]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  The time course of spatial memory distortions , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Albert Postma,et al.  Strategic and automatic components in the processing of linguistic spatial relations. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[16]  William J. Hoyer,et al.  Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial representations: A reappraisal , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[17]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[18]  A. Postma,et al.  The time course of hemispheric differences in categorical and coordinate spatial processing , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[19]  Victoria J. Bourne.  The divided visual field paradigm: Methodological considerations , 2006, Laterality.

[20]  Marcel Adam Just,et al.  Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. , 1975 .

[21]  C. B. Cave,et al.  Evidence for two types of spatial representations: hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  A. Postma,et al.  On the hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial relations: a review of the current evidence , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  Albert Postma,et al.  Categorical and coordinate spatial relations in working memory: An fMRI study , 2009, Brain Research.

[25]  Earl Hunt,et al.  Individual Differences in the Verification of Sentence-Picture Relationships , 1978 .