File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Do bilinguals have a different hemispheric lateralization in visual processing from monolinguals?

TitleDo bilinguals have a different hemispheric lateralization in visual processing from monolinguals?
Authors
Issue Date2010
PublisherAssociation for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. The Journal's web site is located at http://wwwjournalofvisionorg/
Citation
The 2010 Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society (VSS), Naples, FL, USA, 7-12 May 2010. Abstracts in Journal of Vision, 2010, v. 10 n. 7, article no. 618 How to Cite?
AbstractPrevious studies showed reduced hemispheric asymmetry in non-verbal tasks such as face perception for alphabetic bilinguals compared to alphabetic monolinguals (Hausmann et al., 2004). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether this effect can also be observed in bilinguals of a logographic language (such as Chinese) and an alphabetic language. Since logographic language and alphabetic languages are dramatically different in their orthography and how orthographic components are mapped to pronunciations and meanings, bilinguals of a logographic and an alphabetic language may have different visual experience than bilinguals and monolinguals of alphabetic languages. In this study, we aimed to examine whether reduced hemispheric asymmetry in non-verbal tasks can also be observed in Chinese-English bilinguals. We compared results of Chinese-English bilinguals and English monolinguals in three tachistoscopic identification tasks: Chinese character sequential matching task, English word sequential matching task, and intact-altered face recognition task. In the reaction time data, we found faster response times for both Chinese character and English word targets presented in the right visual field than in the left visual field (i.e. left hemisphere advantage) in bilingual participants; in contrast, faster response times in the right visual field were only observed for English word targets in monolingual participants. In the discrimination sensitivity measures (D-prime), we found that both monolinguals and bilinguals exhibited a left visual field/right hemisphere advantage for Chinese character matching and a right visual field/left hemisphere advantage for English word matching; in addition, there was more lateralization for bilinguals than monolinguals. In contrast to the results of Hausmann et al. (2004), we failed to observe a difference in lateralization in the intact-altered face recognition task between English monolinguals and Chinese-English bilinguals. Our results suggest that different kinds of language experience may have different influences on hemispheric lateralization in visual processing.
DescriptionFace perception: Experience - no. 23.529
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/266692
ISSN
2019 Impact Factor: 2.145
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.042

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLam, SM-
dc.contributor.authorHsiao, JHW-
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-29T06:27:29Z-
dc.date.available2019-01-29T06:27:29Z-
dc.date.issued2010-
dc.identifier.citationThe 2010 Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society (VSS), Naples, FL, USA, 7-12 May 2010. Abstracts in Journal of Vision, 2010, v. 10 n. 7, article no. 618-
dc.identifier.issn1534-7362-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/266692-
dc.descriptionFace perception: Experience - no. 23.529-
dc.description.abstractPrevious studies showed reduced hemispheric asymmetry in non-verbal tasks such as face perception for alphabetic bilinguals compared to alphabetic monolinguals (Hausmann et al., 2004). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether this effect can also be observed in bilinguals of a logographic language (such as Chinese) and an alphabetic language. Since logographic language and alphabetic languages are dramatically different in their orthography and how orthographic components are mapped to pronunciations and meanings, bilinguals of a logographic and an alphabetic language may have different visual experience than bilinguals and monolinguals of alphabetic languages. In this study, we aimed to examine whether reduced hemispheric asymmetry in non-verbal tasks can also be observed in Chinese-English bilinguals. We compared results of Chinese-English bilinguals and English monolinguals in three tachistoscopic identification tasks: Chinese character sequential matching task, English word sequential matching task, and intact-altered face recognition task. In the reaction time data, we found faster response times for both Chinese character and English word targets presented in the right visual field than in the left visual field (i.e. left hemisphere advantage) in bilingual participants; in contrast, faster response times in the right visual field were only observed for English word targets in monolingual participants. In the discrimination sensitivity measures (D-prime), we found that both monolinguals and bilinguals exhibited a left visual field/right hemisphere advantage for Chinese character matching and a right visual field/left hemisphere advantage for English word matching; in addition, there was more lateralization for bilinguals than monolinguals. In contrast to the results of Hausmann et al. (2004), we failed to observe a difference in lateralization in the intact-altered face recognition task between English monolinguals and Chinese-English bilinguals. Our results suggest that different kinds of language experience may have different influences on hemispheric lateralization in visual processing.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherAssociation for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. The Journal's web site is located at http://wwwjournalofvisionorg/-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Vision-
dc.relation.ispartofVision Sciences Society Annual Meeting 2010-
dc.titleDo bilinguals have a different hemispheric lateralization in visual processing from monolinguals?-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailHsiao, JHW: jhsiao@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityHsiao, JHW=rp00632-
dc.identifier.doi10.1167/10.7.618-
dc.identifier.hkuros175553-
dc.identifier.volume10-
dc.identifier.issue7-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 618-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 618-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats