Neural correlates of the right-brain dominance for spatial processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right brain is dominant for spatial and attentional functions, and right-brain damage often results in spatial deficits such as spatial neglect. However, to date there is no comprehensive understanding of the underlying neural mechanisms because right-dominant asymmetries in healthy individuals are subtle and often inconsistent. We have recently introduced a relatively sensitive test of asymmetries, called gratingscales task that requires perceptual comparisons between two stimuli containing high and low spatial frequencies. Interestingly, people are leftward-biased in their perceptions when instructed to compare high spatial frequencies but not when comparing the low spatial frequencies of the same stimuli. Here we used this effect to narrow down the temporal-spatial structure of neural systems underlying the perceptual bias. We recorded the electrical event-related potentials of participants while they compared high or low spatial frequencies of the gratingscales task, or while they performed a control task on the same stimuli. We found that both tasks differed in similar ways from the control task. Both showed a greater negativity 150 ms after stimulus onset that originated from bilateral occipital electrodes and then migrated to electrodes over right parietal and right latero-occipital regions. This was followed by bilateral positivity over occipital and parieto-occipital regions at ∼200 ms. Importantly however, only for high spatial frequency judgments task differences traveled back to right latero-occipital electrodes, manifesting in a more pronounced N300 there. Our data offer novel insights into the interplay between perceptual, attentional, and potentially working memory functions involved in perceptual biases. Future research will specify locations and the functional role of these components in the right-brain dominance of spatial tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".