Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:59:35.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hemispheric Differences for Global and Local Processing: Effect of Stimulus Size and Sparsity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

María J. Blanca  and
Gema López-Montiel
María J. Blanca*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Málaga (Spain)
Gema López-Montiel
Affiliation:
Universidad de Málaga (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to María J. Blanca. Facultad de Psicología. Dpto. de Psicobiología y Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento. Campus Universitario de Teatinos, s/n. Málaga, 29071 (Spain). e-mail: blamen@uma.es. Phone: + 34 - (95) 2131088. Fax: + 34 - (95) 2132621.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present experiment was designed to assess the hemispheric differences for global and local processing in healthy participants under different conditions of stimuli visibility, by means of varying the size and sparsity. Three different sizes and three different matrixes of hierarchical stimuli were introduced. Stimuli consisted of incomplete squares with one side missing. Participants were asked to carry out an orientation classification task (left/right), indicating the orientation of the square opening either at global or local levels. The results do not support the hemispheric differences for global and local processing, showing the same efficiency of right and left hemispheres for analyzing global and local information. Nevertheless, other results found are consistent with the hypothesis of right hemisphere superiority under degraded stimulus conditions.

El objetivo del presente experimento ha sido analizar las diferencias hemisféricas en el procesamiento global y local de la información visual en participantes con cerebro intacto bajo diferentes condiciones de visibilidad del estímulo, Se introdujeron estímulos jerárquicos consistentes en cuadrados abiertos hacia la derecha o izquierda, variando el tamaño (3.23°, 6.44° y 9.61°) y la densidad estimular (matrices de 4×4, 5×5 y 6×6 elementos). Los participantes llevaron a cabo una tarea de clasificación de la orientación (izquierda/derecha), indicando la orientación de la apertura en el nivel global o en el local. Los resultados no muestran evidencias que apoyen la diferenciación hemisférica en el procesamiento global y local, aunque fueron consistentes con la hipótesis de una superioridad de hemisferio derecho bajo condiciones de degradación estimular.

Keywords

global processinglocal processinghemispheric asymmetrieshemispheric specializationtask demandsprocesamiento globalprocesamiento localasimetría hemisféricaespecialización hemisféricasdemanda de la tarea
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , May 2009 , pp. 21 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alarcón, R., & Blanca, M. J. (2000) Asimetría hemisférica en la dicotomía holística-analítica en tareas de atención focalizada. Psicothema, 12, 15–17.Google Scholar
Alivisatos, B. W., & Wilding, J. (1982). Type letter stimuli: hemispheric differences in matching stroop-type letter stimuli. Cortex, 18, 5–21.Google Scholar
Amirkhiabani, G. (1998). Relative size of global visual stimulus: advantage and interference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 1427–1441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amirkhiabani, G., & Lovegrove, W.J. (1996). Role of eccentricity and size in the global precedence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1434–1447.Google Scholar
Antes, J. R., & Mann, S. W. (1984). Global-local precedence in picture processing. Psychological Research, 46, 247–259.Google Scholar
Arnau, J., Blanca, M. J., & Salvador, F. (1992a). Superioridad del procesamiento de los rasgos globales en función de la densidad estimular. Anuario de Psicología, 54, 49–60.Google Scholar
Arnau, J., Blanca, M. J., & Salvador, F. (1992b). Diferenciación hemisférica, estilos cognitivos y procesamiento de la información visual. Psicothema, 4, 237–252.Google Scholar
Arnau, J., Salvador, F., & Blanca, M. J. (1992). Efecto de la dimensión estimular en el procesamiento global-local. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 45, 13–21.Google Scholar
Bedson, E., & Turnbull, O. H. (2002). Hemispheric asymmetry for global and local processing: Language is less important than one might think. Brain and Cognition, 48, 272–277.Google ScholarPubMed
Blanca, M. J. (1992). Can certain stimulus characteristics influence the hemispheric differences in global and local processing? Acta Psychologica, 79, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanca, M. J., & Alarcón, R. (2002). Hemispheric differences in global and local processing with orientation classification tasks. Neuropsychologia, 40, 957–963.Google Scholar
Blanca, M. J., Luna, R., López-Montiel, D., Rando, B. & Zalabardo, C. (2001). Procesamiento global y local con tareas de categorización de la orientación. Anales de Psicología, 17, 247–254.Google Scholar
Blanca, M. J., Luna, R., López-Montiel, D., Zalabardo, C. & Rando, B. (2001). Características de los estímulos y de la tarea en el procesamiento de los rasgos global y local. Psicológica, 22, 267–291.Google Scholar
Blanca, M. J., Zalabardo, C., García-Criado, R., & Siles, R. (1994). Hemispheric differences in global and local processing dependent on exposure duration. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1343–1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boles, D. B. (1984). Global versus local processing: Is there a hemispheric dichotomy? Neuropsychologia, 22, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boles, D. B. (1995). Parameters of the bilateral effect. In Kitterle, F. L. (Ed.), Hemispheric communication: mechanism and models (pp.231–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Boles, D. B., & Karner, T. A. (1996). Hemispheric differences in global versus local processing: Still unclear. Brain and Cognition 30, 232–243.Google Scholar
Boles, D. B., & Rashid, R. (1993). Spatial frecuency masking of lateralized word recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 563–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, J. L., & Nettlenton, N. C. (1983). Human cerebral asymmetry. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bryden, M. P., & Allard, R. (1976). Visual hemifield differences depend on typeface. Brain and Language, 3, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delis, D., Robertson, L., & Efron, R. (1986). Hemispheric specialization of memory for visual hierarchical stimuli. Neuropsychologia, 24, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evert, D., & Kmen, M. (2003). Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local processing as a function of stimulus exposure duration. Brain and Cognition, 51, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fink, G. R., Halligan, P. W., Marshall, J. P., Frith, C. D., Frackowiak, & Dolan, R.J. (1996). Where in the brain does visual attention select the forest and the trees? Nature, 382 (6592), 626–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fink, G. R., Halligan, P. W., Marshall, J. P., Frith, C. D., Frackowiak, & Dolan, R. J. (1997). Neural mechanisms involved in the processing of global and local aspects of hierarchically organized visual stimuli. Brain, 120, 1779–1791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, R. G., Canham, L., & Boroughs, J. (1983). Forest before trees? It depends where you look. Perception and Psychophysics, 33, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., & Chen, L. (1999). Parallel and competitive processes in hierarchical analysis: Perceptual grouping and encoding of closure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1411–1432.Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, A. J. (1978). Test de dominancia lateral. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.Google Scholar
Hellige, J. B. (1980). Effects of perceptual quality and visual field of probe stimulus presentation on memory search for letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 639–651.Google ScholarPubMed
Hellige, J. B. (1983). Feature similarity and laterality effects in visual masking. Neuropsychologia, 21, 633–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickok, G., Kirk, K., & Bellugi, U. (1998). Hemispheric organization of local-and global-level visuospatial processes in deaf signers and its relation to sign language aphasia. Brain and Language, 65, 276–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, J. E. (1980). Interaction between global and local levels of a form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 222–234.Google ScholarPubMed
Hübner, R. (1997). The effect of spatial frequency on global precedence and hemispheric differences. Perception and Psychophysics, 59, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hübner, R. (1998). Hemispheric differences in global/local processing revealed by same-different judgements. Visual Cognition, 5, 457–4.Google Scholar
Hübner, R., & Malinowski, P. (2002) The effect of response competition on fuctional hemispheric asymmetries for global/local processing. Perception and Pscyhophysics, 64, 1290–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübner, R., & Volberg, G. (2005). The integration of object levels and their content: A theory of global/local processing related hemispheric differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 420–541.Google Scholar
Kimchi, R., & Merhav, I. (1991). Hemispheric processing of global form, local form, and texture. Acta Psychologica, 76, 133–147.Google Scholar
Kinchla, R. A., Solis-Macias, V., & Hoffman, J. (1983). Attending to different levels of structure in visual image. Perception and Psychophysics, 33, 1–10.Google Scholar
Kinchla, R.A., & Wolfe, J.M. (1979). the order of visual processing: «top down», «bottom up» or «middle out». Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 225–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamb, M.R., Robertson, L.C., & Knight, T. (1989). Effects of right and left temporal parietal lesions on the processing of global and local patterns in a selective attention task. Neuropsychologia, 27, 471–483.Google Scholar
Luna, D., Marcos-Ruiz, R.,. & Merino, J.M. (1995). Selective attention of global and local information: Effects of visual angle, exposure duration, and eccentricity on processing dominance. Visual Cognition, 2 (2/3), 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. (1979a). Local and global processing: The role of sparsity. Memory and Cognition, 7, 476–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. (1979b). Hemispheric specialization for local and global processing. Neuropsychologia, 17, 33–40.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1981a). Global precedence in attention and decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1161–1174.Google ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. (1981b). Global precedence: Information availability or use? Reply to Navon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1183–1185.Google Scholar
Morais, J., & Ben-Dror, (1985). Factors of hemifield differences in form discrimination. Brain and Cognition, 4, 451–464.Google Scholar
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navon, D. (1981). The forest revisited: More on global precedence. Psychological Research, 43, 1–32.Google Scholar
Polich, J., & Aguilar, V. (1990). Hemispheric local/global processing revisted. Acta Psychologica, 74, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, L. C. (1995). Hemispheric specialization and cooperation in processing complex visual patterns. In Kitterle, F. L. (Ed.), Hemispheric communication: Mechanisms and models (pp. 301–318). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Robertson, L., & Delis, D. (1986). “Part-Whole” processing in unilateral brain-damaged patients: dysfunction of hierachical organization. Neuropsychologia, 24, 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, L. C., Lamb, M. R., & Knight, R. T. (1988). Effects of lesions of temporal-parietal junction on perceptual and attentional processing in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 8, 3757–3769.Google Scholar
Rumiati, R., Nicoletti, R., & Job, R. (1989). Processing of global and local information in memory. The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(1-A), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sergent, J. (1982a). The cerebral balance of power: confrontation or cooperation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception and Performance, 8, 253–272.Google Scholar
Sergent, J. (1982b). Methodological and theoretical consequences of variations in exposure duration in visual laterality studies. Perception and Psychophysics, 31, 451–461.Google Scholar
Van Kleeck, M. H. (1989). Hemispheric differences in global versus local processing of hierarchical visual stimuli by normal subjects: New data and a meta-analysis of previous studies. Neuropsychologia, 27, 1165–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versace, R. & Tiberghien, G. (1988). Sensitivity of cerebral hemispheres to the local and global components of verbal and no-verbal stimuli. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 8, 125–137.Google Scholar
Volberg, G. & Hübner, R. (2007). Deconfunding the effects of congruency and task difficulty on hemispheric differences in global/local processing. Experimental Psychology, 54, 83–88.Google Scholar
Yovel, G., Yovel, I. & Levy, J. (2001). Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local visual perception: Effect of stimulus and task factors. Journal of Experimental Pscyhology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1369–1385.Google Scholar