Visual field differences in sequential letter classification tasks

A review of the literature on visual field asymmetries indicated that although the constructs of strategy, processing, and attention had been invoked to account for results there was little objective evidence to support these views. The Posner letter classification tasks provide a methodology which...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: McCarthy, Rosaleen A.
Published: University of Leicester 1980
Subjects:
150
Online Access:https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.737282
id ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-737282
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-7372822019-03-05T15:47:07ZVisual field differences in sequential letter classification tasksMcCarthy, Rosaleen A.1980A review of the literature on visual field asymmetries indicated that although the constructs of strategy, processing, and attention had been invoked to account for results there was little objective evidence to support these views. The Posner letter classification tasks provide a methodology which enables such constructs to be tested empirically, and accordingly were employed in this research. Sequential double letter classifications were used because they provide a stable visual match advantage (Kroll, 1975), permitting an evaluation of retention interval effects without the complications of code change. Despite such stability on cognitive dependent variables, visual field effects differed between 9 sec (Experiment I) and those of less than one second (Experiment III). A change in coding bias was induced by the use of irregular time structure (Experiments IV, V, VII) although overall visual field differences were comparable to those obtained when coding was stable (Experiments III and VI). Four of the relevant studies indicated a right field advantage for cross-case (name) matches, and non asymmetric identity or visual match judgements. Single letter stimuli showed a left field advantage for identity matches, and a right field effect for cross-case classifications. The overall pattern of results indicated that visual field differences arose from the time of test stimulus presentation onwards. These findings were incompatible with models of visual field differences which have been advanced hitherto. An integration of strategy, attention and processing hypotheses was advanced and suggestions made for further research.150University of Leicesterhttps://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.737282http://hdl.handle.net/2381/34669Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
collection NDLTD
sources NDLTD
topic 150
spellingShingle 150
McCarthy, Rosaleen A.
Visual field differences in sequential letter classification tasks
description A review of the literature on visual field asymmetries indicated that although the constructs of strategy, processing, and attention had been invoked to account for results there was little objective evidence to support these views. The Posner letter classification tasks provide a methodology which enables such constructs to be tested empirically, and accordingly were employed in this research. Sequential double letter classifications were used because they provide a stable visual match advantage (Kroll, 1975), permitting an evaluation of retention interval effects without the complications of code change. Despite such stability on cognitive dependent variables, visual field effects differed between 9 sec (Experiment I) and those of less than one second (Experiment III). A change in coding bias was induced by the use of irregular time structure (Experiments IV, V, VII) although overall visual field differences were comparable to those obtained when coding was stable (Experiments III and VI). Four of the relevant studies indicated a right field advantage for cross-case (name) matches, and non asymmetric identity or visual match judgements. Single letter stimuli showed a left field advantage for identity matches, and a right field effect for cross-case classifications. The overall pattern of results indicated that visual field differences arose from the time of test stimulus presentation onwards. These findings were incompatible with models of visual field differences which have been advanced hitherto. An integration of strategy, attention and processing hypotheses was advanced and suggestions made for further research.
author McCarthy, Rosaleen A.
author_facet McCarthy, Rosaleen A.
author_sort McCarthy, Rosaleen A.
title Visual field differences in sequential letter classification tasks
title_short Visual field differences in sequential letter classification tasks
title_full Visual field differences in sequential letter classification tasks
title_fullStr Visual field differences in sequential letter classification tasks
title_full_unstemmed Visual field differences in sequential letter classification tasks
title_sort visual field differences in sequential letter classification tasks
publisher University of Leicester
publishDate 1980
url https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.737282
work_keys_str_mv AT mccarthyrosaleena visualfielddifferencesinsequentialletterclassificationtasks
_version_ 1718997085108305920