More on words, hemifields, and hemispheres: a reply to Schwartz and Kirsner.
This paper critically examines the theoretical and empirical basis for two claims made by Schwartz and Kirsner (1986, Brain and Cognition, 5, 354-361): (1) that acuity gradients can account for most visual field effects/interactions reported for horizontally presented words, and (2) the acuity gradients should be considered the "default" explanation for such findings. It is argued here that the acuity gradient account of higher order laterality effects is based on a questionable theory of lexical access, has no empirical support, and cannot explain, even in principle, many lateralization results. It is concluded that acuity gradients make little or no contribution to laterality effects when the stimuli consist of short monomorphemic words, and that theoretical explanations for such effects ought not be accepted by default.
Chiarello
C
C
Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, NY 13244-2340.
D005556:Form Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D007839:Functional Laterality; D006801:Humans; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D011932:Reading; D014792:Visual Acuity; D014794:Visual Fields