Hemispheric asymmetries in hierarchical stimulus processing are modulated by stimulus categories and their predictability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemispheric dominance has been behaviourally documented for the local (left hemisphere, LH) or global (right hemisphere, RH) processing of hierarchical letters. However, Fink et al. (1997) indicated that stimulus category modulates this hemispheric asymmetry. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of the category (letters versus objects) on hemispheric specialisation for global and local processing using a visual half-field presentation in a task where participants ignored whether the target appeared at the global or local level. In Experiment 1 we replicated the classic hemispheric asymmetry for global/local processing of hierarchical letters. In Experiment 2, which consisted of hierarchical object processing, a RH dominance for the local level was observed. In Experiment 3 a within-participant design was used where anticipation about the stimulus category was precluded, resulting in the classic RH and LH specialisations for global and local processing for both letter-based and object-based stimuli. Taken together, these results suggest that the highly demanding local processing stage engages one hemisphere more than the other, according to the lateralisation of cerebral networks specialised for stimulus category. In addition, the direction of lateralisation for the local level was also modulated by the predictability of the stimulus category.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".