Testing the relationship between lateralization on sequence-based motor tasks and language laterality using an online battery.

ABSTRACTStudies have highlighted an association between motor laterality and speech production laterality. It is thought that common demands for sequential processing may underlie this association. However, most studies in this area have relied on relatively small samples and have infrequently explored the reliability of the tools used to assess lateralization. We, therefore, established the validity and reliability of an online battery measuring sequence-based motor laterality and language laterality before exploring the associations between laterality indices on language and motor tasks. The online battery was completed by 621 participants, 52 of whom returned to complete the battery a second time. The three motor tasks included in the battery showed good between-session reliability (r ≥ .78) and were lateralized in concordance with hand preference. The novel measure of speech production laterality was left lateralized at population level as predicted, but reliability was less satisfactory (r = .62). We found no evidence of an association between sequence-based motor laterality and language laterality. Those with a left-hand preference were more strongly lateralized on motor tasks requiring midline crossing; this effect was not observed in right-handers. We conclude that there is little evidence of the co-lateralization of language and sequence-based motor skill on this battery.

Inconsistent language lateralisation - Testing the dissociable language laterality hypothesis using behaviour and lateralised cerebral blood flow.

BACKGROUND: Most people have strong left-brain lateralisation for language, with a minority showing right- or bilateral language representation. On some receptive language tasks, however, lateralisation appears to be reduced or absent. This contrasting pattern raises the question of whether and how language laterality may fractionate within individuals. Building on our prior work, we postulated (a) that there can be dissociations in lateralisation of different components of language, and (b) these would be more common in left-handers. A subsidiary hypothesis was that laterality indices will cluster according to two underlying factors corresponding to whether they involve generation of words or sentences, versus receptive language. METHODS: We tested these predictions in two stages: At Step 1 an online laterality battery (Dichotic listening, Rhyme Decision and Word Comprehension) was given to 621 individuals (56% left-handers); At Step 2, functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD) was used with 230 of these individuals (51% left-handers). 108 left-handers and 101 right-handers gave useable data on a battery of three language generation and three receptive language tasks. RESULTS: Neither the online nor fTCD measures supported the notion of a single language laterality factor. In general, for both online and fTCD measures, tests of language generation were left-lateralised. In contrast, the receptive tasks were at best weakly left-lateralised or, in the case of Word Comprehension, slightly right-lateralised. The online measures were only weakly correlated, if at all, with fTCD measures. Most of the fTCD measures had split-half reliabilities of at least .7, and showed a distinctive pattern of intercorrelation, supporting a modified two-factor model in which Phonological Decision (generation) and Sentence Decision (reception) loaded on both factors. The same factor structure fitted data from left- and right-handers, but mean scores on the two factors were lower (less left-lateralised) in left-handers. CONCLUSIONS: There are at least two factors influencing language lateralization in individuals, but they do not correspond neatly to language generation and comprehension. Future fMRI studies could help clarify how far they reflect activity in specific brain regions.

The role of orthographic neighbourhood effects in lateralized lexical decision: a replication study and meta-analysis.

The effect of orthographic neighbourhood size (N) on lexical decision reaction time differs when words are presented in the left or right visual fields. Evidence suggests a facilitatory N effect (i.e., faster reaction times for words with larger neighbourhoods) in the left visual field. However, the N effect in the right visual field remains controversial: it may have a weaker facilitative role or it may even be inhibitory. In a pre-registered online experiment, we replicated the interaction between N and visual field and provided support for an inhibitory N effect in the right visual field. We subsequently conducted a pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the available evidence and determine the direction of N effects across visual fields. Based on the evidence, it would seem the effect is inhibitory in the right visual field. Furthermore, the size of the N effect is considerably smaller in the right visual field. Both studies revealed considerable heterogeneity between participants and studies, and we consider the implications of this for future work.