INTERHEMISPHERIC-TRANSFER AND THE PROCESSING OF FOVEALLY PRESENTED STIMULI

Two arguments are commonly given in favor of a nasotemporal overlap along the vertical meridian of the visual field: anatomical findings and the existence of macular sparing in hemianopia. A review of the literature, however, points to the weakness of the evidence. The anatomical indications are exclusively based on horseradish peroxidase studies, which can not give an unequivocal answer to the amount of overlap in central vision, and which were not supported by a recent study that made use of the more direct [C-14]2-deoxy-D-glucose technique. The argument of macular sparing in hemianopia appears to be derived evidence that depends on the validity of the anatomical findings. In addition, behavioral studies consistently failed to find functional confirmation of the overlap. To further test the possibility of bilateral representation in central vision, a new paradigm is proposed. It is argued that if interhemispheric transfer is needed for the processing of foveally presented stimuli, the word-beginning superiority effect should be larger for subjects with left hemisphere dominance than for subjects with right hemisphere dominance. Results are in line with the hypothesis and point to the fact that interhemispheric transfer of visual information may be involved in more processing than usually accepted. It is also noted that transfer time seems to depend on the amount of information that must be transferred, and is significantly shorter than the estimates obtained in visual half field studies.