CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Hemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceVisual perception and processing mechanismsMotor Control and Adaptation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Eye dominance influences triggering action: the Poffenberger paradigm revisited.

Chaumillon, Romain, Blouin, Jean, Guillaume, Alain·2014·Cortex
DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.05.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Our dominant eye (DE) is the one we unconsciously choose when performing a monocular task. Although it has been recognized for centuries, eye dominance and its behavioral consequences remain poorly understood. Here we used the simple and well-known Poffenberger paradigm (1912) in which participants press a button with the right or left index finger, in reaction to the appearance of a lateralized visual stimulus. By selecting participants according to their DE and handedness, we were able to decipher the impact of eye dominance on visuomotor transformation speed. We show, for the first time, that in right-handers simple reaction times (RT) in response to a lateralized visual target are shorter when it appears in the contralateral visual hemifield with respect to the DE. In left-handers, only those with a right DE exhibit a shorter RT with the left hand and they show no hemifield difference. Additionally, the Poffenberger paradigm has been used to estimate the interhemispheric transfer time (IHTT) in both directions, from the right to the left hemisphere or the reverse, by comparing hand RTs following stimulation of each visual hemifield. The present study demonstrates that this paradigm leads to biased estimations of these directionally considered IHTT and provides an explanation to the often reported IHTT negative values that otherwise appear implausible. These new findings highlight the need to consider eye dominance in studies investigating the neural processes underlying v…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.05.009

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Aglioti, 1991, Bilateral hemispheric control of foot distal movements: evidence from normal subjects, Cortex, 27, 571, 10.1016/S0010-9452(13)80006-8 · DOI
  2. Barthelemy, 2001, Manual reaction time asymmetries in human subjects: the role of movement planning and attention, Neuroscience Letters, 315, 41, 10.1016/S0304-3940(01)02313-8 · DOI
  3. Bashore, 1981, Vocal and manual reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transmission time, Psychological Bulletin, 89, 352, 10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.352 · DOI
  4. Bompas, 2008, Naso-temporal asymmetry for signals invisible to the retinotectal pathway, Journal of Neurophysiology, 100, 412, 10.1152/jn.90312.2008 · DOI
  5. Bourassa, 1996, Handedness and eye-dominance: a meta-analysis of their relationship, Laterality, 1, 5, 10.1080/713754206 · DOI
  6. Braun, 1992, Estimation of interhemispheric dynamics from simple unimanual reaction time to extrafoveal stimuli, Neuropsychology Review, 3, 321, 10.1007/BF01108415 · DOI
  7. Braun, 1994, Effect of a right hemifield advantage on crossed-uncrossed differentials in simple reaction time: toward a new model of interhemispheric relay, Acta Psychologica, 85, 91, 10.1016/0001-6918(94)90026-4 · DOI
  8. Brown, 1994, Directional asymmetries in interhemispheric transmission time: evidence from visual evoked potentials, Neuropsychologia, 32, 439, 10.1016/0028-3932(94)90089-2 · DOI
  9. Carey, 2001, Losing sight of eye dominance, Current Biology, 11, 828, 10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00496-1 · DOI
  10. Carey, 2013, Looking at eye dominance from a different angle: is sighting strength related to hand preference?, Cortex, 49, 2542, 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.11.011 · DOI
  11. Corballis, 2002, Hemispheric interaction in simple reaction time, Neuropsychologia, 40, 423, 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00097-5 · DOI
  12. Eviatar, 1997, Individual differences in lateralization: effects of gender and handedness, Neuropsychology, 11, 562, 10.1037/0894-4105.11.4.562 · DOI
  13. Hasbroucq, 1988, A new look at reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transfer transmission time, Current Psychology of Cognition, 8, 207
  14. Hécaen, 1981, Cerebral organization in left-handers, Brain and Language, 12, 261, 10.1016/0093-934X(81)90018-3 · DOI
  15. Hellige, 1994, Individual variation in hemispheric asymmetry: multitask study of effects related to handedness and sex, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 123, 235, 10.1037/0096-3445.123.3.235 · DOI
  16. Herron, 1979, Cerebral specialization, writing posture, and motor control of writing in left-handers, Science, 205, 1285, 10.1126/science.472745 · DOI
  17. Honda, 2002, Idiosyncratic left-right asymmetries of saccadic latencies: examination in a gap paradigm, Vision Research, 42, 1437, 10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00050-0 · DOI
  18. Iacoboni, 2000, Crossed-uncrossed difference in simple reaction times to lateralized flashes: between- and within-subjects variability, Neuropsychologia, 38, 535, 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00121-9 · DOI
  19. Iwabuchi, 2009, Atypical interhemispheric communication in left-handed individuals, NeuroReport, 20, 166, 10.1097/WNR.0b013e32831f1cbb · DOI
  20. Jóhannesson, 2012, Saccade performance in the nasal and temporal hemifields, Experimental Brain Research, 219, 107, 10.1007/s00221-012-3071-2 · DOI
  21. Khan, 2001, Ocular dominance reverses as a function of horizontal gaze angle, Vision Research, 41, 1743, 10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00079-7 · DOI
  22. Kristjánsson, 2004, When pros become cons for anti-versus prosaccades: factors with opposite or common effects on different saccade types, Experimental Brain Research, 155, 231, 10.1007/s00221-003-1717-9 · DOI
  23. Levy, 1976, Variations in writing posture and cerebral organization, Science, 194, 337, 10.1126/science.968487 · DOI
  24. Levy, 1978, Variations in cerebral organization as a function of handedness, hand posture in writing, and sex, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 119, 10.1037/0096-3445.107.2.119 · DOI
  25. Mapp, 2003, What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review, Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 310, 10.3758/BF03194802 · DOI
  26. Marzi, 2010, Asymmetry of interhemispheric communication, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 433
  27. Marzi, 1991, Is interhemispheric transfer of visuomotor information asymmetric? Evidence from a meta-analysis, Neuropsychologia, 29, 1163, 10.1016/0028-3932(91)90031-3 · DOI
  28. McKeever, 1980, Inverted handwriting position, language laterality, and the Levy-Nagylaki genetic model of handedness and cerebral organization, Neuropsychologia, 18, 99, 10.1016/0028-3932(80)90090-1 · DOI
  29. Mendola, 2007, Eye dominance predicts fMRI signals in human retinotopic cortex, Neuroscience Letters, 414, 30, 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.12.012 · DOI
  30. Miles, 1930, Ocular dominance in human adults, Journal of General Psychology, 3, 412, 10.1080/00221309.1930.9918218 · DOI
  31. Milner, 1982, Interference effects of verbal and spatial tasks on simple visual reaction time, Neuropsychologia, 20, 591, 10.1016/0028-3932(82)90032-X · DOI
  32. Minucci, 1964, Reaction time under three viewing conditions: binocular, dominant eye and nondominant eye, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 268, 10.1037/h0039953 · DOI
  33. Moscovitch, 1979, Differences in neural organization between individuals with inverted and noninverted handwriting postures, Science, 205, 710, 10.1126/science.462180 · DOI
  34. Nowicka, 1996, Interhemispheric transmission of information and functional asymmetry of the human brain, Neuropsychologia, 34, 147, 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00064-X · DOI
  35. Oldfield, 1971, The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory, Neuropsychologia, 9, 97, 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 · DOI · Paper page
  36. O’Brien, 1979, A general ANOVA method for robust test of additive models for variance, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 877, 10.1080/01621459.1979.10481047 · DOI
  37. Pellicano, 2013, Interhemispheric vs. stimulus-response spatial compatibility effects in bimanual reaction times to lateralized visual stimuli, Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1
  38. Perry, 1984, Retinal ganglion cells that project to the superior colliculus and pretectum in the macaque monkey, Neuroscience, 12, 1125, 10.1016/0306-4522(84)90007-1 · DOI
  39. Poffenberger, 1912, Reaction time to retinal stimulation with special reference to the time lost in conduction through nerve centers, Archives of Psychology, 23, 1
  40. Porac, 1976, The dominant eye, Psychological Bulletin, 83, 880, 10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.880 · DOI
  41. Rafal, 1991, Extrageniculate contributions to reflex visual orienting in normal humans: a temporal hemifield advantage, Journal of Cognitive Neurosciences, 3, 322, 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.4.322 · DOI
  42. Rafal, 1990, Extrageniculate vision in hemianopic humans: saccade inhibition by signals in the blind field, Science, 250, 118, 10.1126/science.2218503 · DOI
  43. Rombouts, 1996, The functional basis of ocular dominance: functional MRI (fMRI) findings, Neuroscience Letters, 221, 1, 10.1016/S0304-3940(96)13260-2 · DOI
  44. Rugg, 1984, Visual evoked potentials to lateralized visual stimuli and the measurement of interhemispheric transmission time, Neuropsychologia, 22, 215, 10.1016/0028-3932(84)90064-2 · DOI
  45. Rugg, 1985, Visual evoked potentials to lateralised stimuli in two cases of callosal agenesis, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 48, 367, 10.1136/jnnp.48.4.367 · DOI
  46. Saron, 1989, Visual evoked potential measures of interhemispheric transfer time in humans, Behavioral Neuroscience, 103, 1115, 10.1037/0735-7044.103.5.1115 · DOI
  47. Savage, 1993, Information processing and interhemispheric transfer in left- and right-handed adults, International Journal of Neuroscience, 71, 201, 10.3109/00207459309000605 · DOI
  48. Savazzi, 2007, Interhemispheric transfer following callosotomy in humans: role of the superior colliculus, Neuropsychologia, 45, 2417, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.04.002 · DOI
  49. Seyal, 1981, Visual evoked potentials and eye dominance, Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 52, 424, 10.1016/0013-4694(81)90025-0 · DOI
  50. Shima, 2010, Ocular dominance affects magnitude of dipole moment: an MEG study, NeuroReport, 21, 817, 10.1097/WNR.0b013e32833ce5d7 · DOI
  51. Shneor, 2006, Eye dominance effects in feature search, Vision Research, 46, 4258, 10.1016/j.visres.2006.08.006 · DOI
  52. Sylvester, 2006, Visual FMRI responses in human superior colliculus show a temporal-nasal asymmetry that is absent in lateral geniculate and visual cortex, Journal of Neurophysiology, 97, 1495, 10.1152/jn.00835.2006 · DOI
  53. Taghavy, 1987, Pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (white-black- and colour-black-PVEPs) in the study of eye dominance, European Archives of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 236, 329, 10.1007/BF00377421 · DOI
  54. Teasdale, 2001, Cognitive abilities in left-handers: writing posture revisited, Neuropsychologia, 39, 881, 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00047-1 · DOI
  55. Wade, 1998, Early studies of eye dominances, Laterality, 3, 97, 10.1080/713754296 · DOI
  56. Walker, 2000, The oculomotor distractor effect in normal and hemianopic vision, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 267, 431, 10.1098/rspb.2000.1018 · DOI
  57. Walls, 1951, A theory of ocular dominance, Archives of Ophthalmology American Medical Association, 45, 387, 10.1001/archopht.1951.01700010395005 · DOI
  58. Wardrop, 1808, Vol. 2
  59. Williams, 1995, Nasal and temporal retinal ganglion cells projecting to the midbrain: implications for “blindsight”, Neuroscience, 65, 577, 10.1016/0306-4522(94)00489-R · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time

    Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Reed, B. (2015) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131 · Cited by 336

    “SRT latencies showed only a small reduction ( 1 ms) for stimuli presented in the hemifield contralateral to the responding hand, as reported in previous studies (Chaumillon et al., 2014).”
    BackgroundResult

Metadata

Authors
Chaumillon, R., Blouin, J., & Guillaume, A.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Guillaume, Alain
ORCID
Venue
Cortex
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
58
Pages
86-98
ISSN
0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cortex.2014.05.009
OpenAlex
W2080287820
Cited by
30
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL AMU (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
ocular dominance, interhemispheric transfer time, visuomotor transformation, reaction time, hemispheric lateralization, handedness, visually guided action
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Dominance, Ocular, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review