Split fovea theory and the role of the two cerebral hemispheres in reading: A review of the evidence

Split fovea theory proposes that when the eyes are fixated within a written word, visual information about the letters falling to the left of fixation is projected initially to the right cerebral hemisphere while visual information about the letters falling to the right of fixation is projected to the left cerebral hemisphere. The two parts of the word must be re-united before the word can be recognised. Bilateral projection theory proposes instead that visual information is projected simultaneously to both hemispheres provided that it falls within the fovea (defined as the central 2-3 degrees). On this more traditional account, no interhemispheric transfer would be required in order to read a word presented within the fovea. We review the evidence in support of split fovea theory and consider some of the objections that have been raised. We argue that a split fovea affects the reading of words at fixation, something that must be recognised and accounted for by cognitive, computational and neural models of reading.

[1]  T. Mexia,et al.  Author ' s personal copy , 2009 .

[2]  Manuel Perea,et al.  Lexical competition is enhanced in the left hemisphere: Evidence from different types of orthographic neighbors , 2008, Brain and Language.

[3]  T. R. Jordan,et al.  Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: effects of retinal eccentricity on hemispheric dominance. , 2008, Neuropsychology.

[4]  A. Ellis,et al.  Evaluating a split fovea model of visual word recognition: effects of case alternation in the two visual fields and in the left and right halves of words presented at the fovea , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  Word Length and Orthographic Neighborhood Size Effects in the Left and Right Cerebral Hemispheres , 2002, Brain and Language.

[6]  Michael S. Gazzaniga,et al.  Interhemispheric relationships: the neocortical commissures; syndromes of hemisphere disconnection , 1969 .

[7]  T. M. Ellison,et al.  Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage, and visual word recognition in a split processing model. , 2000, Psychological review.

[8]  T. R. Jordan,et al.  Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Effects of word length , 2009, Cortex.

[9]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  Modes of word recognition in the left and right cerebral hemispheres , 1988, Brain and Language.

[10]  A. Dale,et al.  The representation of the ipsilateral visual field in human cerebral cortex. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing. , 1978, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  The importance of interhemispheric transfer for foveal vision: A factor that has been overlooked in theories of visual word recognition and object perception , 2004, Brain and Language.

[13]  D B Boles,et al.  Dissociated imageability, concreteness, and familiarity in lateralized word recognition , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[14]  Michal Lavidor,et al.  Case alternation and length effects in lateralized word recognition: Studies of English and Hebrew , 2002, Brain and Cognition.

[15]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  The Split Fovea Theory and the Leicester critique: What do the data say? , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  Michal Lavidor,et al.  The nature of foveal representation , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[17]  The Vertical Field Border in Hemianopia and Its Significance for Fixation and Reading , 2005 .

[18]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. , 1992 .

[19]  Richard J. Davidson,et al.  The asymmetrical brain , 2003 .

[20]  T. R. Jordan,et al.  Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Effects of word length during monocular viewing , 2010, Cortex.

[21]  Sharon M. Thomas,et al.  Asymmetries and Eccentricities in Studies of Lateralised Word Recognition: A Response to Nazir , 2003, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[22]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Foveal Word Reading Requires Interhemispheric Communication , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  Michael C. Corballis,et al.  Role of the forebrain commissures in interhemispheric integration. , 1993 .

[24]  A. Leventhal,et al.  The nasotemporal division in primate retina: the neural bases of macular sparing and splitting. , 1988, Science.

[25]  Carol Whitney,et al.  SERIOL Reading , 2008 .

[26]  A. H. Bunt,et al.  Foveal sparing. New anatomical evidence for bilateral representation of the central retina. , 1977, Archives of ophthalmology.

[27]  M. Arguin,et al.  Case alternation and orthographic neighborhood size effects in the left and right cerebral hemispheres , 1999 .

[28]  Padraic Monaghan,et al.  Hemispheric dissociation and dyslexia in a computational model of reading , 2008, Brain and Language.

[29]  Michael S. Gazzaniga,et al.  Evidence of foveal splitting in a commissurotomy patient , 1989, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  T. R. Jordan,et al.  Assessing effects of fixation demands on perception of lateralized words: A visual window technique for studying hemispheric asymmetry , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[31]  Marie T. Banich,et al.  Interaction between the hemispheres and its implications for the processing capacity of the brain. , 2003 .

[32]  J. Stone,et al.  The naso‐temporal division of the monkey's retina , 1973, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[33]  M. Gazzaniga Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[34]  Haruki Abe,et al.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging in homonymous hemianopsia. , 1996, American journal of ophthalmology.

[35]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[36]  Charles Hulme,et al.  The science of reading: A handbook. , 2005 .

[37]  Eran Zaidel,et al.  Language in the Right Hemisphere Following Callosal Disconnection , 1998 .

[38]  J. Hellige,et al.  Hemispheric asymmetry for word naming: effects of frequency and regularity of pronunciation. , 1998, Laterality.

[39]  D. D. Wheeler Processes in word recognition , 1970 .

[40]  M S Gazzaniga,et al.  Variability in right hemisphere language function after callosal section: evidence for a continuum of generative capacity , 1981, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[41]  M. Gazzaniga,et al.  Nasotemporal overlap at the retinal vertical meridian: Investigations with a callosotomy patient , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[42]  T R Jordan,et al.  Lateralized word recognition: assessing the role of hemispheric specialization, modes of lexical access, and perceptual asymmetry. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[43]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  Orthographic Neighborhood Effects in the Right but Not in the Left Cerebral Hemisphere , 2002, Brain and Language.

[44]  Ellen Bialystok,et al.  Handbook of Neurolinguistics , 1998 .

[45]  A. Huber Homonymous hemianopia after occipital lobectomy. , 1962, American journal of ophthalmology.

[46]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  Interhemispheric cooperation and non-cooperation during word recognition: Evidence for callosal transfer dysfunction in dyslexic adults , 2007, Brain and Language.

[47]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[48]  G. M. Reicher Perceptual recognition as a function of meaninfulness of stimulus material. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[49]  A. Ellis Communication between the cerebral hemispheres in dyslexic and skilled adult readers , 2009 .

[50]  R. Bruyer,et al.  Lateral differences in lexical access: Word length vs. stimulus length , 1989, Brain and Language.

[51]  M Lavidor,et al.  Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: effects of word length. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[52]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  Length, formats, neighbours, hemispheres, and the processing of words presented laterally or at fixation , 2004, Brain and Language.

[53]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli , 1994, Behavioural Brain Research.

[54]  C. Whitney How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[55]  A. Young,et al.  Different methods of lexical access for words presented in the left and right visual hemifields , 1985, Brain and Language.

[56]  Alan Cowey,et al.  The 30th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Fact, Artefact, and Myth about Blindsight , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[57]  S. Trauzettel-Klosinski,et al.  Nasotemporal overlap of retinal ganglion cells in humans: a functional study. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[58]  Daniel N. Bub,et al.  Different modes of word recognition in the left and right visual fields , 1988, Brain and Language.

[59]  Timothy R. Jordan,et al.  Central Fixations are Inadequately Controlled by Instructions Alone: Implications for Studying Cerebral Asymmetry , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[60]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Theoretical analysis of interhemispheric transfer costs in visual word recognition , 2008 .

[61]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[62]  Janet Hui-wen Hsiao,et al.  Neural correlates of foveal splitting in reading: Evidence from an ERP study of Chinese character recognition , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[63]  R. Shillcock,et al.  Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of orthographic neighborhood size , 2004, Brain and Language.

[64]  Zoë R. Hunter,et al.  Visual half-field experiments are a good measure of cerebral language dominance if used properly: Evidence from fMRI , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[65]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[66]  A. Leff A historical review of the representation of the visual field in primary visual cortex with special reference to the neural mechanisms underlying macular sparing , 2004, Brain and Language.

[67]  E. Ringelstein,et al.  Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[68]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  Mixed-case effects in lateralized word recognition , 2001, Brain and Cognition.

[69]  M. Nicholls,et al.  Cortical Representation of the Fovea: Implications for Visual Half-Field Research , 2003, Cortex.

[70]  T. R. Jordan,et al.  Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: A critical assessment of recent research , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[71]  J. Coney Word frequency and the lateralization of lexical processes , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[72]  Michael C. Corballis,et al.  Visual integration in the split brain , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[73]  A. H. Bunt,et al.  Demonstration of bilateral projection of the central retina of the monkey with horseradish peroxidase neuronography , 1977, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[74]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Visual constraints in written word recognition: evidence from the optimal viewing-position effect , 2005 .

[75]  Stephen J. Lupker,et al.  Visual Word Recognition: Theories and Findings , 2008 .

[76]  R W Schvaneveldt,et al.  An activation--verification model for letter and word recognition: the word-superiority effect. , 1982, Psychological review.

[77]  Marco Iacoboni,et al.  Hemispheric Independence in Word Recognition: Evidence from Unilateral and Bilateral Presentations , 1996, Brain and Language.