The effects of stimulus symmetry on landmark judgments in left and right visual fields

Line bisection impairment is greater following right compared to left hemisphere damage, suggesting that some of the underlying visuo-spatial mechanisms may be lateralised. One important perceptual component of line bisection is estimating stimulus midpoint. Here, we used a modified version of the perceptual landmark task to examine, in healthy individuals, how the midpoint of a stimulus is apprehended, and if the cerebral hemispheres are equally as efficient in performing such a task. We show that the right, relative to the left, hemisphere is both faster and more accurate at apprehending prebisected lines, but no better at apprehending misbisected lines. We then demonstrate that the right hemisphere advantage stems from a specialisation in detecting stimulus symmetry; by associating prebisected lines with the presence of display symmetry, transect location can be inferred without having to explicitly calculate the midpoint of lines. The findings provide a further reason why right hemisphere damage is so deterimental to perceptual line bisection. In addition, the data indicate that the detection of visual symmetry is preferentially lateralised to the right hemisphere.

[1]  A. Milner,et al.  Line bisection errors in visual neglect: Misguided action or size distortion? , 1993, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  J Sergent,et al.  Theoretical and methodological consequences of variations in exposure duration in visual laterality studies , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  S. Dakin,et al.  The spatial region of integration for visual symmetry detection , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[4]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: computational analyses and computer simulations. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  R. C. Roberts,et al.  Differential Effects of Line Length on Bisection Judgements in Hemispatial Neglect , 1995, Cortex.

[6]  E. Renzi,et al.  The Occurrence of Visual Neglect in Patients With Unilateral Cerebral Disease , 1976, Cortex.

[7]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Uniform connectedness and classical gestalt principles of perceptual grouping , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  M. Jeannerod.  Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect. , 1987 .

[9]  H. Barlow,et al.  The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays , 1979, Vision Research.

[10]  B Tversky,et al.  Force of symmetry in form perception. , 1984, The American journal of psychology.

[11]  B. Julesz,et al.  Symmetry Perception and Spatial-Frequency Channels , 1979, Perception.

[12]  J. Flavell,et al.  A microgenetic approach to perception and thought. , 1957, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  S. Leehey,et al.  Lateral asymmetries in the recognition of words, familiar faces and unfamiliar faces , 1979, Neuropsychologia.

[14]  G D Logan,et al.  Distance and distraction effects in the apprehension of spatial relations. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  G. Logan.  Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  R. Nebes,et al.  Patterns of Hand Preference in a Student Population , 1975, Cortex.

[17]  K. Zilles,et al.  Line bisection judgments implicate right parietal cortex and cerebellum as assessed by fMRI , 2000, Neurology.

[18]  F. Royer,et al.  Detection of symmetry. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  A. Milner,et al.  To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects , 1992, Neuropsychologia.

[20]  K. Heilman,et al.  Mechanisms underlying hemispatial neglect , 1979, Annals of neurology.

[21]  William Prinzmetal,et al.  Good continuation affects visual detection , 1977 .

[22]  S. Palmer,et al.  The role of symmetry in shape perception. , 1985, Acta psychologica.

[23]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information , 1984 .

[24]  H Pashler,et al.  Coordinate frame for symmetry detection and object recognition. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  B. Julesz.  Foundations of Cyclopean Perception , 1971 .

[26]  Edoardo Bisiach,et al.  Perceptual and Response Bias in Unilateral Neglect: Two Modified Versions of the Milner Landmark Task , 1998, Brain and Cognition.

[27]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Parallel and competitive processes in hierarchical analysis: perceptual grouping and encoding of closure. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  Maryanne Martin,et al.  Hemispheric specialization for local and global processing , 1979, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Coding space within but not between objects: evidence from Balint’s syndrome , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  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.

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

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

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

[34]  Joseph B. Hellige,et al.  Role of input factors in visual-field asymmetries , 1986, Brain and Cognition.

[35]  M. Kinsbourne.  Mechanisms of Unilateral Neglect , 1987 .

[36]  John C. Marshall,et al.  Figural modulation of visuo-spatial neglect: A case study , 1991, Neuropsychologia.

[37]  J. Marshall,et al.  VISUOSPATIAL NEGLECT: UNDERLYING FACTORS AND TEST SENSITIVITY , 1989, The Lancet.

[38]  K. Heilman,et al.  Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task , 1980, Neuropsychologia.

[39]  Ruth Ann Atchley,et al.  Hemispheric specialization in the detection of subjective objects , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[40]  Michael C. Corballis,et al.  On the perception of symmetrical and repeated patterns , 1974 .

[41]  R. Rafal,et al.  Ipsilesional line bisection bias in patients with chronic parietal lesions. , 1999, Neuroreport.

[42]  John C. Marshall,et al.  Spatial Compression in Visual Neglect: A Case Study , 1991, Cortex.

[43]  R. Knight,et al.  Component mechanisms underlying the processing of hierarchically organized patterns: inferences from patients with unilateral cortical lesions. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[44]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Higher-order structure in regularity detection , 1993, Vision Research.

[45]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Evidence from unilateral visual neglect , 1995 .

[46]  Joseph B. Hellige,et al.  Hemispheric differences are found in the identification, but not the detection, of low versus high spatial frequencies , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  A. Milner,et al.  An Investigation of Hemispatial Neglect Using the Landmark Task , 1995, Brain and Cognition.

[48]  P J Locher,et al.  Effects of Element Type and Spatial Grouping on Symmetry Detection , 1993, Perception.

[49]  M. McCourt,et al.  Centripetal versus centrifugal bias in visual line bisection: focusing attention on two hypotheses. , 2000, Frontiers in bioscience : a journal and virtual library.