Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T18:54:24.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual differences in semantic switching flexibility: Effects of handedness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2009

VARALAKSHMI SONTAM ,
STEPHEN D. CHRISTMAN  and
JOHN D. JASPER
VARALAKSHMI SONTAM
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio
STEPHEN D. CHRISTMAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio
JOHN D. JASPER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Stephen D. Christman, Department of Psychology, 2801 West Bancroft Ave., University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606-3390. E-mail: Stephen.Christman@utoledo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The semantic fluency task is a widely used assessment tool for evaluating memory-related cognitive deficits in neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. The present study investigates individual differences in performance on this task in a normal population. The aim is to explore handedness differences in switching and clustering tendencies when performing this task. Consistent with our prediction, when asked to produce as many animal names as possible in 1 min, mixed handers demonstrated greater switching between different subcategories of animals than strong handers. These findings are interpreted in terms of the more diffuse spread of activation among conceptual representations in the right hemisphere, and greater access to right hemisphere processes in mixed handers. The findings have implications for the research communities using the semantic fluency task, irrespective of whether or not they are looking at handedness differences per se. (JINS, 2009, 15, 1023–1027.)

Keywords

Verbal fluencySwitchingClusteringHandednessIndividual differencesSemantic networks
Type
Brief Communications
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 15 , Issue 6 , November 2009 , pp. 1023 - 1027
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Annett, M., & Moran, P. (2006). Schizotypy is increased in mixed-handers, especially right-handed writers who use the left hand for primary actions. Schizophrenia Research, 81, 239–246.Google Scholar
Ardila, A., Ostrosky-Solis, F., & Bernal, B. (2006). Cognitive testing toward the future: The example of semantic verbal fluency (Animals). International Journal of Psychology, 41, 324–332.Google Scholar
Barnett, K.J., & Corballis, M.C. (2002). Ambidexterity and magical ideation. Laterality, 7, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beeman, M., Friedman, R.B., Grafman, J., Perez, E., Diamond, S., & Lindsay, M.B. (1994). Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 26–45.Google Scholar
Chiarello, C., Burgess, C., Richards, L., & Pollock, A. (1990). Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Some words do, some words don’t…sometimes, some places. Brain and Language, 38, 75–104.Google Scholar
Christman, S.D., Propper, R.E., & Dion, A. (2004). Increased interhemispheric interaction is associated with decreased false memories in a verbal converging semantic associates paradigm. Brain and Cognition, 56, 313–319.Google Scholar
Christman, S.D., Sontam, V., & Jasper, J.D. (2009). Individual differences in ambiguous figure perception: Degree of handedness and interhemispheric interaction. Perception, manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Duchene, A., Graves, R.E., & Brugger, P. (1998). Schizotypal thinking and associative processing: A response commonality analysis of verbal fluency. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 23, 56–60.Google Scholar
Epker, M.O., Lacritz, L.H., & Cullum, C.M. (1999). Comparative analysis of qualitative verbal fluency performance in normal elderly and demented populations. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21, 425–434.Google Scholar
Garcia-Albea Ristol, J.E. (1977). Oral and written expression in tests of verbal fluency. Revista de Psicological General y Aplicada, 32, 41–59.Google Scholar
Gomez, R.G., & White, D.A. (2006). Using verbal fluency to detect very mild dementia of the Alzheimer type. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 771–775.Google Scholar
Henry, J.D., & Beatty, W.W. (2006). Verbal fluency deficits in multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1166–1174.Google Scholar
Henry, J.D., & Crawford, J.R. (2004). Verbal fluency deficits in Parkinson’s disease: A meta-analysis. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 608–622.Google Scholar
Kiang, M., & Kutas, M. (2006). Abnormal typicality of responses on a category fluency task in schizotypy. Psychiatry Research, 145, 119–126.Google Scholar
Muñiz, J., Garcia-Cueto, E., Garcia-Alcañiz, E., & Yela, M. (1985). Analysis of verbal, oral, and written fluency in men and women. Revista de Psicological General y Aplicada, 40, 255–275.Google Scholar
Niebauer, C.L., Aselage, J., & Schutte, C. (2002). Interhemispheric interaction and consciousness: Degree of handedness predicts the intensity of a sensory illusion. Laterality, 7, 85–96.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 96–113.Google Scholar
Pizzagalli, D., Lehmann, D., & Brugger, P. (2001). Lateralized direct and indirect semantic priming effects in subjects with paranormal experiences and beliefs. Psychopathology, 34, 75–80.Google Scholar
Propper, R.E., Christman, S.D., & Phaneuf, K.A. (2005). A mixed-handed advantage in episodic memory: A possible role of interhemispheric interaction. Memory and Cognition, 33, 751–757.Google Scholar
Sontam, V., & Christman, S.D. (2007). Semantic organization: Possible individual differences based on handedness. Presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Long Beach CA.Google Scholar
Troyer, A.K., Moscovitch, M., & Winocur, G. (1997). Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency: Evidence from younger and older healthy adults. Neuropsychology, 11, 138–146.Google Scholar
Witelson, S.F., & Goldsmith, C.H. (1991). The relationship of hand preference to anatomy of the corpus callosum in men. Brain Research, 545, 175–182.Google Scholar
Wixted, J.T., & Rohrer, D. (1994). Analyzing the dynamics of free recall: An integrative review of the empirical literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 89–106.Google Scholar