Selective Attention, Visual Laterality, Awareness, and Perceiving the Meaning of Parafoveally Presented Words

Four experiments are reported investigating the effect of selective attention on the semantic encoding of parafoveally presented words. In Experiments 1 and 2 a right visual field (RVF) performance bias was found when subjects attended to words that could appear either left or right of centre (attend-side condition). When subjects attended centrally and ignored lateral distractor words (attendcentre condition) there was an inhibitory effect of word meaning from left visual field (LVF) distractors. Both inhibitory and facilitatory effects of semantic category were observed from unattended words in Experiments 3 and 4. The pattern of effects depended upon the direction of spatial bias in an attend-side condition. Both kinds of effect occurred even for subjects who were unable to make consciously directed semantic category decisions to words at the same eccentricity (4°) and exposure time (15 msec) as ignored distractors in the attend-centre condition. Implications of these findings for theories of selective attention, for the issue of semantic encoding independent of conscious awareness, and for theories of the relationship between lateral performance biases and functional hemispheric asymmetry are discussed.

[1]  J. Deutsch.  Perception and Communication , 1958, Nature.

[2]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[3]  M. Kinsbourne.  The mechanism of hemispheric control of the lateral gradient of attention , 1975 .

[4]  G. Underwood,et al.  Right-hemisphere interactions in picture-word processing , 1985, Brain and Cognition.

[5]  G Underwood,et al.  Parafoveal Words are Effective in Both Hemifields: Preattentive Processing of Semantic and Phonological Codes , 1983, Perception.

[6]  J. Deutsch,et al.  Attention: Some theoretical considerations. , 1963 .

[7]  J. Beaumont,et al.  Comparative Processing of Imageable Nouns in the Left and Right Visual Fields , 1981, Cortex.

[8]  D. Broadbent.  Task combination and selective intake of information. , 1982, Acta psychologica.

[9]  C W Eriksen,et al.  Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  A. Benton.  Laterality: Functional Asymmetry in the Intact Brain. , 1984 .

[11]  S. Ceci,et al.  Semantic priming effects for stimuli presented to the right and left visual fields , 1985, Brain and Language.

[12]  M. Moscovitch.  Information Processing and the Cerebral Hemispheres , 1979 .

[13]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Expectations Increase the Benefit Derived from Parafoveal Visual Information in Reading Words Aloud. , 1981 .

[14]  Drew H. Abney,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance Influence of Musical Groove on Postural Sway , 2015 .

[15]  G. Humphreys.  On Varying the Span of Visual Attention: Evidence for Two Modes of Spatial Attention , 1981 .

[16]  J. Beaumont.  Divided visual field studies of cerebral organisation , 1982 .

[17]  Divided Visual Field Studies of Cerebral Organisation , 1983 .

[18]  M. Posner,et al.  Components of visual orienting , 1984 .

[19]  J. Duncan.  The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. , 1980, Psychological review.

[20]  H. Egeth,et al.  Failure of spatial selectivity in vision , 1978 .

[21]  N Moray,et al.  Attention, practice, and semantic targets. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  S. Tipper,et al.  Selective Attention and Priming: Inhibitory and Facilitatory Effects of Ignored Primes , 1985, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[23]  A. Inhoff,et al.  Parafoveal word perception: a further case against semantic preprocessing. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  A. Lambert.  Selectivity and stages of processing—An enduring controversy in attentional theory: A review , 1985 .

[25]  A W Inhoff,et al.  Parafoveal word perception: A case against semantic preprocessing , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  D. LaBerge.  Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  K R Paap,et al.  Parafoveal information is not sufficient to produce semantic or visual priming , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  J L Bradshaw,et al.  Peripherally presented and unreported words may bias the perceived meaning of a centrally fixated homograph. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[29]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[30]  G. V. Simpson,et al.  Orienting attention within visual fields: how efficient is interhemispheric transfer? , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Takeshi Hatta,et al.  Differential processing of Kanji and Kana stimuli in Japanese people: Some implications from stroop-test results , 1981, Neuropsychologia.

[32]  Robert Hockey,et al.  Effects of repetition on the facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space , 1987, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  S. Tipper.  The Negative Priming Effect: Inhibitory Priming by Ignored Objects , 1985, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.