Abstract
Recent research has demonstrated a leftward bias in judgments of size. In the present experiments, hemispatial size bias was measured through simultaneous presentation of a circle and an ellipse varying in horizontal or vertical extent. A consistent leftward bias of horizontal size judgments (but not vertical) was obtained; at the point of subjective equality, the width of the objects that were presented in left hemispace was smaller than the width of the objects that were presented in right hemispace. These data suggest that the horizontal extent of stimuli appear larger in left hemispace than in right hemispace. Results also indicated that symmetrical stimulus presentation, with respect to the vertical meridian, is required for the bias to emerge. Furthermore, increasing or decreasing stimulus eccentricity weakened the effect. Attenuation of this bias upon the manipulation of parameters indicates that this phenomenon is context specific and is affected by similar parameters that are known to influence the magnitude of error in pseudoneglect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, B. (1996). A mathematical model of line bisection behaviour in neglect.Brain,119, 841–850.
Barlow, H. B., &Reeves, B. C. (1979). The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays.Vision Research,19, 783–793.
Bowers, D., &Heilman, K. M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task.Neuropsychologia,18, 491–498.
Carrasco, M., Evert, D. L., Chang, I., &Katz, S. M. (1995). The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 1241–1261.
De Renzi, E., Gentilini, M., Faglioni, P., &Barbieri, C. (1989). Attentional shift towards the rightmost stimuli in patients with left visual neglect.Cortex,25, 231–237.
DeValois, R. L., &DeValois, K. K. (1988).Spatial vision. New York: Oxford University Press.
Drain, M., &Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1996). Vertical orienting control: Evidence for attentional bias and “neglect” in the intact brain.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 139–158.
Driver, J., &Halligan, P. W. (1991). Can visual neglect operate in object-centred coordinates?Cognitive Neuropsychology,8, 475–496.
Evans, C. S., Wenderoth, P., &Cheng, K. (2000). Detection of bilateral symmetry in complex biological images.Perception,29, 31–42.
Ferber, S., &Karnath, H. O. (2001). Size perception in hemianopia and neglect.Brain,124, 527–536.
Foxe, J. J., McCourt, M. E., &Javitt, D. C. (2003). Parietal control of visuospatial attention: Line bisection judgments evaluated with high-density electrical mapping and source analysis.NeuroImage,19, 710–726.
Gainotti, G., &Tiacci, C. (1971). The relationships between disorders of visual perception and unilateral spatial neglect.Neuropsychologia, 9, 451–458.
Giurfa, M., Eichmann, B., &Menzel, R. (1996). Symmetry perception in an insect.Nature,382, 458–461.
Halligan, P. W., Manning, L., &Marshall, J. C. (1991). Hemispheric activation versus spatio-motor cueing in visual neglect: A case study.Neuropsychologia,29, 165–176.
Halligan, P. W., &Marshall, J. C. (1994). Right-sided cueing can ameliorate left neglect.Neuropsychology Rehabilitation,4, 63–73.
Heilman, K. M., Bowers, E., Valenstein, R. T., &Watson, R. T. (1987). Hemispace and hemispatial neglect. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.),Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect (pp. 115–150). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Heilman, K. M., &Van Den Abell, T. (1980). Right hemisphere dominance for attention: The mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries of inattention (neglect).Neurology,30, 327–330.
Jewell, G., &McCourt, M. E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks.Neuropsychologia,38, 93–110.
Kinsbourne, M. (1970). The cerebral basis of lateral asymmetries in attention.Acta Psychologica,33, 193–201.
Kinsbourne, M. (1987). Mechanisms of unilateral neglect. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.),Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect (pp. 69–86). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kinsbourne, M. (1993). Orientational bias model of unilateral neglect: Evidence from attentional gradients within hemispace. In I. H. Robertson & J. C. Marshall (Eds.),Unilateral neglect: Clinical and experimental studies (pp. 63–86). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
LaBerge, D., &Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operation in shape identification.Psychological Review,96, 101–124.
Locher, P. J., &Wagemans, J. (1993). Effects of element type and spatial grouping on symmetry detection.Perception,22, 565–587.
Luh, K. E. (1995). Line bisection and perceptual asymmetries in normal individuals: What you see is not what you get.Neuropsychology,9, 435–448.
Luh, K. E., Rueckert, L. M., &Levy, J. (1991). Perceptual asymmetries for free viewing of several types of chimeric stimuli.Brain & Cognition,16, 83–103.
Manning, L., Halligan, P. W., &Marshall, J. C. (1990). Individual variation in line bisection: A study of normal subjects with application to the interpretation of visual neglect.Neuropsychologia,28, 647–655.
Mapstone, M., Weintraub, S., Nowinski, C., Kaptanoglu, G., Gitelman, D. R., &Mesumam, M. M. (2003). Cerebral hemispherical specialization for spatial attention: Spatial distribution of searchrelated eye fixation in the absence of neglect.Neuropsychologia,41, 1396–1409.
Mattingley, J. B., Bradshaw, J. L., Nettleton, N. C., Bradshaw, J. A. (1994). Can task specific perceptual bias be distinguished from unilateral neglect?Neuropsychologia,32, 805–817.
McCourt, M. E., Freeman, P., Tahmahkera-Stevens, C., &Chaussee, M. (2001). The influence of unimanual response on pseudoneglect magnitude.Brain & Cognition,45, 52–63.
McCourt, M. E., &Garlinghouse, M. (2000a). Asymmetries of visuospatial attention are modulated by viewing distance and visual field elevation: Pseudoneglect in peripersonal and extrapersonal space.Cortex,36, 715–731.
McCourt, M. E., &Garlinghouse, M. (2000b). Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect: Influence of line geometry.Neuropsychologia,38, 520–524.
McCourt, M. E., &Jewell, G. (1999). Visuospatial attention in line bisection: Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect.Neuropsychologia,37, 843–855.
McCourt, M. E., &Olafson, C. L. (1997). Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: Psychophysical and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect.Neuropsychologia,35, 369–380.
McManus, I. C., &Tomlinson, J. (2004). Objects look different sizes in the right and left eyes.Laterality,3, 245–265.
Milner, A. D., Brechmann, M., &Pagliarni, L. (1992). To halve or halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgments in normal subjects.Neuropsychologia,30, 515–526.
Milner, A. D., &Harvey, M. (1995). Distortion of size perception in visuospatial neglect.Current Biology,5, 85–89.
Milner, A. D., Harvey, M., Roberts, R. C., &Forster, S. V. (1993). Line bisection errors in visual neglect: Misguided action or size distortion?Neuropsychologia,31, 39–49.
Moller, A. P., &Thornhill, R. (1998). Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: A meta-analysis.American Naturalist,151, 174–192.
Neilson, K. E., Intriligator, J., &Barton, J. J. (1999). Spatial representation in the normal visual field: A study of hemifield line bisection.Neuropsychologia,37, 267–277.
Nicholls, M. E. R., Bradshaw, J. L., &Mattingley, J. B. (1999). Free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for the judgment of shade, numerosity and size.Neuropsychologia,37, 307–314.
Nicholls, M. E. R., Bradshaw, J. L., &Mattingley, J. B. (2005). The effect of strategy on pseudoneglect for luminance judgments.Cognitive Brain Research,25, 71–77.
Nicholls, M. E. R., Mattingley, J. B., Berberovic, N., Smith, A., &Bradshaw, J. L. (2004). An investigation of the relationship between free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for vertical and horizontal stimuli.Cognitive Brain Research,19, 289–301.
Nicholls, M. E. R., &Roberts, G. R. (2002). Pseudoneglect: A scanning, pre-motor or attentional bias?Cortex,38, 113–136.
Orr, C. A., &Nicholls, E. R. (2005). The nature and contribution of space- and object-based attentional biases to free-viewing perceptual asymmetries.Experimental Brain Research,162, 384–393.
Post, R. B., Caufield, K. J., &Welch, R. B. (2001). Contributions of object- and space-based mechanisms to line bisection errors.Neuropsychologia,39, 856–864.
Rainville, S. J. M., &Kingdom, F. A. A. (2000). The functional role of oriented spatial filters in the perception of mirror symmetry—psychophysics and modelling.Vision Research,40, 2621–2644.
Rapcsak, S. Z., Watson, R. T., &Heilman, K. M. (1987). Hemispace and visual-field interactions in visual extinction.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry,50, 1117–1124.
Shelton, P. A., Bowers, D., &Heilman, K. M. (1990). Peripersonal and vertical neglect.Brain,113, 191–205.
Steenhuis, R. E., &Bryden, M. P. (1989). Different dimensions of hand preference that relate to skilled and unskilled activities.Cortex, 25, 285–304.
Tipper, S. P., &Behrmann, M. (1996). Object-centered not scenebased visual neglect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 1261–1278.
Toth, C., &Kirk, A. (1996). A normal bias toward a pictorially defined top in line bisection.Canadian Journal of Neurological Science,23, 110–113.
Wenderoth, P. (1994). The salience of vertical symmetry.Perception,23, 221–236.
Wilkinson, D. T., &Halligan, P. W. (2002). The effects of stimulus symmetry on landmark judgments in left and right visual fields.Neuropsychologia,40, 1045–1058.
Wilkinson, D. T., &Halligan, P. W. (2003). Stimulus symmetry affects the bisection of figures but not lines: Evidence from event-related fMRI.NeuroImage,20, 1756–1764.
Wolfe, J. M., O’Neill, P., &Bennett, S. C. (1998). Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 140–156.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Charles, J., Sahraie, A. & McGeorge, P. Hemispatial asymmetries in judgment of stimulus size. Perception & Psychophysics 69, 687–698 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193771
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193771