Towards a unified understanding of lateralized vision: A large-scale study investigating principles governing patterns of lateralization using a heterogeneous sample
Open accessAbstract
While functional lateralization of the human brain has been a widely studied topic in the past decades, few studies to date have gone further than investigating lateralization of single, isolated processes. With the present study, we aimed to arrive at a more unified view by investigating lateralization patterns in face and word processing, and associated lower-level visual processing. We tested a large and heterogeneous participant group, and used a number of tasks that had been shown to produce replicable indices of lateralized processing of visual information of different types and complexity. Following Bayesian statistics, group-level analyses showed the expected right hemisphere (RH) lateralization for face, global form, low spatial frequency processing, and spatial attention, and left hemisphere (LH) lateralization for visual word and local feature processing. Compared to right-handed individuals, lateralization patterns of left-handed and especially those who are RH-dominant for language deviated from this 'typical' pattern. Our results support the notion that face and word processes come to be lateralized to homologue areas of the two hemispheres, under influence of the RH- and LH-specializations in global form, local feature, and low and high spatial frequency processing. As such, we present a more unified understanding of lateralized vision, providing evidence for the input asymmetry and causal complementarity principles of lateralized visual information processing. The absence of correlations between spatial attention and lateralization of the other processes supports the notion of their independent lateralization, conform the statistical complementarity principle.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The brain relies on left-hemisphere functional compensation to extract detailed information from low-quality visual input.
“Given the left hemisphere’s dominance for detailed visual processing and its primary receipt of visual signals from the right eye,[23] the observed latency prolongation implies that the brain relies on left-hemisphere functional compensation to extract detailed information from low-quality visual input.”
From Brain Rewires to Stabilize Walking During Visual Impairment · cites this paper as [23]
The Summary of results (section 4.1; page unavailable) reports left-hemisphere processing of local features, supporting the cited premise about detailed visual processing. The copy does not establish that the left hemisphere primarily receives signals from the right eye; the Methods (section 2.3; page unavailable) says eye dominance was not a focus. The compensation claim follows the citation as the citing authors’ inference, rather than a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 26
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Hellige, J. B. (1993). Perspectives in cognitive neuroscience. Hemispheric asymmetries: What's right and what's left. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
- Authors
- Brederoo, S. G., Van der Haegen, L., Brysbaert, M., Nieuwenstein, M. R., Cornelissen, F. W., & Lorist, M. M.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Ghent University (BE)
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Brederoo, Sanne G.
- Venue
- Cortex
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-12
- Volume
- 133
- Pages
- 201-214
- ISSN
- 0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3091109619
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 1.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Cortex (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
- Keywords
- functional lateralization, visual processing, face processing, visual word processing, hemispheric lateralization, right hemisphere dominance, left-handedness, spatial frequency processing, spatial attention
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Brain Mapping, Face, Humans, Language, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging
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
