A Critical Look at the Findings of Sergent (1982)

It is widely believed that local and global levels of visual stimuli are better processed in the left and right cerebral hemispheres, respectively. One classic explanation for this observation is the spatial frequency hypothesis proposed by Sergent (1982), which states that the left hemisphere is more efficient at processing high spatial frequencies, whereas the right hemisphere is better with low spatial frequencies. Sergent tested this by measuring RTs for laterally presented stimuli (in the left and right visual fields) composed of high and low spatial frequencies and obtained results consistent with the hypothesis. We put Sergent’s findings to the test by replicating her experiment; our first experiment was a direct replication of hers, while the second used the same procedure, but with different stimuli. Our results largely corresponded with those of Sergent, and the crucial interaction between visual field and spatial frequency was obtained in Experiment 1, but was qualitatively different from Sergent’s. Possible explanations are discussed.

[1]  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.

[2]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Gestalt laws of perceptual organization in an embedded figures task: Evidence for hemispheric specialization , 1989, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Hemispheric differences in sizes of receptive fields or attentional biases , 1994 .

[4]  J. Sergent.  The cerebral balance of power: confrontation or cooperation? , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[6]  K. Heilman.  Functions of the Right Cerebral Hemisphere , 1986, Neurology.

[7]  Bruno G. Breitmeyer,et al.  Simple reaction time as a measure of the temporal response properties of transient and sustained channels , 1975, Vision Research.

[8]  J B Hellige,et al.  Hemispheric asymmetry for visual information processing. , 1996, Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis.

[9]  J. Marshall,et al.  Hemispheric asymmetries in global⧹local processing are modulated by perceptual salience , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  A. Young,et al.  Functions of the Right Cerebral Hemisphere , 1986 .

[11]  R. Kimchi.  Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: a critical review. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  D. Evert,et al.  Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local processing as a function of stimulus exposure duration , 2003, Brain and Cognition.

[13]  Nathalie Guyader,et al.  Neural correlates of spatial frequency processing: A neuropsychological approach , 2006, Brain Research.

[14]  G. Yovel,et al.  Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local visual perception: effects of stimulus and task factors. , 2001 .

[15]  A. Vassilev,et al.  On the delay in processing high spatial frequency visual information: reaction time and VEP latency study of the effect of local intensity of stimulation , 2002, Vision Research.

[16]  B. Breitmeyer,et al.  Temporal studies with flashed gratings: Inferences about human transient and sustained channels , 1977, Vision Research.

[17]  M. Blanca,et al.  Hemispheric Differences for Global and Local Processing: Effect of Stimulus Size and Sparsity , 2009, The Spanish journal of psychology.

[18]  Carole Peyrin,et al.  Hemispheric specialization for spatial frequency processing in the analysis of natural scenes , 2003, Brain and Cognition.

[19]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  J. Beaumont.  5 – METHODS FOR STUDYING CEREBRAL HEMISPHERIC FUNCTION , 1983 .

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

[22]  Monica Baciu,et al.  Cerebral regions and hemispheric specialization for processing spatial frequencies during natural scene recognition. An event-related fMRI study , 2004, NeuroImage.

[23]  Scott O. Murray,et al.  Hemispheric Asymmetry in Global/Local Processing: Effects of Stimulus Position and Spatial Frequency , 2002, NeuroImage.

[24]  Ronald Hübner,et al.  Hemispheric Differences in Global/Local Processing Revealed by Same-Different Judgements , 1998 .

[25]  R. L. Solso,et al.  The Hemispheric Lateralization for Processing Geometric Word/Shape Combinations: The Stroop-Shape Effect , 2009, The Journal of general psychology.

[26]  G. Denes,et al.  Impaired grating discrimination following right hemisphere damage , 1989, Neuropsychologia.

[27]  Alice Mado Proverbio,et al.  Hemispheric Asymmetries for Spatial Frequency Discrimination in a Selective Attention Task , 1997, Brain and Cognition.

[28]  Georg Deutsch,et al.  Left brain, right brain : perspectives from cognitive neuroscience , 1998 .

[29]  M. Sereno,et al.  Dissociation of Sensitivity to Spatial Frequency in Word and Face Preferential Areas of the Fusiform Gyrus , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[30]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Psychophysical evidence for sustained and transient detectors in human vision , 1973, The Journal of physiology.

[31]  Ronald Hübner,et al.  The effect of spatial frequency on global precedence and hemispheric differences , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  R. S. J. Frackowiak,et al.  Hemispheric specialization for global and local processing: the effect of stimulus category , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[33]  Martial Mermillod,et al.  Effect of temporal constraints on hemispheric asymmetries during spatial frequency processing , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[34]  R. Ivry,et al.  The two sides of perception , 1997 .