ArticleBrain structure & function2024
Atypical lateralization of visuospatial attention can be associated with better or worse performance on line bisection.
Article in Brain structure & function, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stronger right-hemispheric involvement in language processing is associated with greater functional connectivity between the left-lateralized language-related network and the cingulo-opercular network.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- Effects of Lateralization of Language on Cognition Among Left-Handers.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Hemispheric consistency in language production, comprehension, and reading in typically and atypically lateralized left-handers: Implications for reading performance.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The causal and statistical hypotheses diverge in determining whether the lateralization of language function in one cerebral hemisphere entails the lateralization of visuospatial function in the opposite hemisphere. Additionally, it remains unclear if the atypical segregation of these functions could influence cognitive performance. This study addresses these questions by examining the hemispheric lateralization of visuospatial attention during a line bisection judgement (landmark) task in three groups of healthy non-right-handed individuals with different language production segregations: left (typical), ambilateral (atypical), and right (atypical). Consistent with the causal hypothesis, results indicate that the groups with left and right language lateralization primarily utilize the opposite hemisphere for visuospatial attention. The ambilateral group, however, displays a pattern compatible with an independent segregation, supporting the statistical hypothesis. Behavioral analyses reveal that atypical lateralization of visuospatial attention (non-right) can lead to either better or worse performance during the landmark task, depending on the specific pattern. Bilateral organization is associated with reduced overall accuracy, whereas the left segregation results in improved performance during the most challenging trials. These findings suggest the existence of diverse pathways to lateralization, akin to either the causal or statistical hypothesis, which can result in cognitive advantages or disadvantages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.