Search

Despite wide reporting of a right ear (RE) advantage on dichotic listening tasks and a right visual field (RVF) advantage on visual half-field tasks, we know very little about the relationship between these perceptual biases. Previous studies that have investigated perceptual asymmetries for analogous auditory and visual consonant–vowel tasks have indicated a serendipitous finding: a RE advantage and a left visual field (LVF) advantage with poor cross-modal correlations. In this study, we examined the possibility that this LVF advantage for visual processing of consonant–vowel strings may be a consequence of repetition by examining perceptual biases in analogous auditory and visual tasks for both consonant–vowel strings and words. We replicated opposite perceptual biases for consonant–vowel strings (RE and LVF advantages). This did not extend to word stimuli where we found RE and RVF advantages. Furthermore, these perceptual biases did not differ across the three experimental blocks. Thus, we can firmly conclude that this LVF advantage is unique to consonant–vowel strings and is not a consequence of the repetition of a relatively limited number of stimuli. Finally, a test of covariances indicated no cross-modal relationships between laterality indices suggesting that perceptual biases are dissociable within individuals and cluster on mode of presentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies have highlighted an association between motor laterality and speech production laterality. It is thought that common demands for sequential processing may underlie this association. However, most studies in this area have relied on relatively small samples and have infrequently explored the reliability of the tools used to assess lateralization. We, therefore, established the validity and reliability of an online battery measuring sequence-based motor laterality and language laterality before exploring the associations between laterality indices on language and motor tasks. The online battery was completed by 621 participants, 52 of whom returned to complete the battery a second time. The three motor tasks included in the battery showed good between-session reliability (r ≥.78) and were lateralized in concordance with hand preference. The novel measure of speech production laterality was left lateralized at population level as predicted, but reliability was less satisfactory (r =.62). We found no evidence of an association between sequence-based motor laterality and language laterality. Those with a left-hand preference were more strongly lateralized on motor tasks requiring midline crossing; this effect was not observed in right-handers. We conclude that there is little evidence of the co-lateralization of language and sequence-based motor skill on this battery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of cerebral lateralization often involve participants completing a series of perceptual tasks under laboratory conditions. This has constrained the number of participants recruited in such studies. Online testing can allow for much larger sample sizes but limits the amount of experimental control that is feasible. Here we considered whether online testing could give valid and reliable results on four tasks: a rhyme decision visual half-field task, a dichotic listening task, a chimeric faces task, and a finger tapping task. We recruited 392 participants, oversampling left-handers, who completed the battery twice. Three of the tasks showed evidence of both validity and reliability, insofar as they showed hemispheric advantages in the expected direction and test-retest reliability of at least r =.75. The reliability of the rhyme decision task was less satisfactory (r =.62). We also confirmed a prediction that extreme left-handers were more likely to depart from typical lateralization. Lateralization across the two language tasks (dichotic listening and rhyme judgement) was weakly correlated, but unrelated to lateralization on the chimeric faces task. We conclude that three of the tasks, dichotic listening, chimeric faces and finger tapping, show considerable promise for online evaluation of cerebral lateralization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]