Divergence of categorical and coordinate spatial processing assessed with ERPs

The spatial relation between two objects may be described either precisely or more coarsely in abstract terms, denoted as coordinate and categorical descriptions, respectively. These descriptions may reflect the outcomes of two spatial coding processes, which are realized in the left- and right-hemisphere. Support for this account comes from visual field effects in categorical and coordinate judgment tasks and from patient studies. In the current study, this hypothesis was tested by using event-related potentials (ERPs) and source localization. ERPs yield information about the processing stage at which the hypothesized categorical and coordinate processing diverge due to different task demands, especially in our S1-S2 version of the Bar Dot task. A centrally presented Bar Dot (S1) was followed after 2.5s by a second one (S2) in the left or right visual field; participants had to judge whether S2 matched S1 at the categorical, or, in a second task, at the coordinate level. Behavioral measures revealed a left-field advantage in the coordinate task that was absent in the categorical task. S1s elicited stronger early and late bilateral posterior responses in the coordinate than in the categorical task, possibly related to a compensatory strategy at the level of encoding and spatial memory. S2s elicited only stronger early contralateral responses, and stronger late right-hemisphere responses in the categorical task. It is proposed that the left-field advantage in the coordinate task may be due to differences in spatial resolution in perceptual encoding of the left- and right-hemispheres that are largely unaffected by the task at hand.

[1]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Coordinate and categorical judgements in spatial imagery. An fMRI study , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  C. Segebarth,et al.  Categorical and coordinate spatial relations: fMRI evidence for hemispheric specialization. , 1999, Neuroreport.

[3]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Neural systems that encode categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: PET investigations , 1998, Psychobiology.

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

[5]  J. Démonet,et al.  Hemispheric preponderance in categorical and coordinate visual processes , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  B. Laeng Lateralization of Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Functions: A Study of Unilateral Stroke Patients , 1994, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[8]  Joseph B. Hellige,et al.  Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Processing: More on Contributions of the Transient/Magnocellular Visual System , 2001, Brain and Cognition.

[9]  C. Brunia Neural aspects of anticipatory behavior. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[10]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Identifying objects in conventional and contorted poses: contributions of hemisphere-specific mechanisms , 1999, Cognition.

[11]  A. Vighetto,et al.  A selective imaging of tinnitus. , 1999, Neuroreport.

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

[13]  G. Romani,et al.  Auditory evoked magnetic fields and electric potentials , 1990 .

[14]  G. R. Mangun,et al.  Monitoring the Visual World: Hemispheric Asymmetries and Subcortical Processes in Attention , 1994, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  M. Scherg Fundamentals if dipole source potential analysis , 1990 .

[16]  R. Bruyer,et al.  Dissociation between Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Computations: Modulation by Cerebral Hemispheres, Task Properties, Mode of Response, and Age , 1997, Brain and Cognition.

[17]  J. Sergent Processing of spatial relations within and between the disconnected cerebral hemispheres. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[18]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[19]  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.

[20]  B. Doyon,et al.  Hemispheric specialization for coordinate versus categorical spatial processing: an ERP study. , 1998, NeuroImage.

[21]  E Donchin,et al.  A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

[23]  J. Jonides,et al.  Rehearsal in spatial working memory. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  J. Sergent Judgments of relative position and distance on representations of spatial relations. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  J. Grafman,et al.  Multiple visuospatial working memory buffers: Evidence from spatiotemporal patterns of brain activity , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  Rolf Verleger,et al.  Posterior and anterior contribution of hand-movement preparation to late CNV. , 2000 .

[27]  J. Grafman,et al.  Distinctions and similarities among working memory processes: an event-related potential study. , 1992, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[29]  M. Annett A classification of hand preference by association analysis. , 1970, British journal of psychology.

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

[31]  N. Donnelly,et al.  The Role of Stimulus Factors in Making Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Judgments , 1999, Brain and Cognition.

[32]  C. Michimata Hemispheric Processing of Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Relations in Vision and Visual Imagery , 1997, Brain and Cognition.

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

[34]  A. Friederici,et al.  Slow cortical potentials during retention of object, spatial, and verbal information. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[35]  Albert Postma,et al.  Sex Differences in Object Location Memory , 1998, Brain and Cognition.

[36]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Categorical and Metric Spatial Processes Distinguished by Task Demands and Practice , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[38]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  How Do the Cerebral Hemispheres Contribute to Encoding Spatial Relations? , 1998 .

[39]  A. Jha,et al.  Tracking the time-course of attentional involvement in spatial working memory: an event-related potential investigation. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[40]  Joseph B. Hellige,et al.  Spatial Processing and Hemispheric Asymmetry: Contributions of the Transient/Magnocellular Visual System , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[41]  Jordan Grafman,et al.  Erratum: Multiple visuospatial working memory buffers: Evidence from spatiotemporal patterns of brain activity (Neuropsychologia (1997) 35 (195-209)) , 1997 .