This article was downloaded by: [Rotem Leshem]

On: 21 September 2013, At: 00:35

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pecp21

The effects of attention on ear advantages in

dichotic listening to words and affects
Rotem Leshem

ab

Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563,

USA
b

Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52100, Israel

Published online: 17 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Rotem Leshem , Journal of Cognitive Psychology (2013): The effects of attention
on ear advantages in dichotic listening to words and affects, Journal of Cognitive Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/20445911.2013.834905
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.834905

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution
in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.834905

The effects of attention on ear advantages in dichotic

listening to words and affects
Rotem Leshem1,2
1

Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, USA

Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52100, Israel

Downloaded by [Rotem Leshem] at 00:35 21 September 2013

This study examined the effects of attention on ear advantages using dichotic listening to words and
affects, a focused-attention paradigm. We compared the mixed condition, in which attention is switched
between the ears in each trial, to the blocked condition, in which attention is directed to one ear for an
entire block of trials. Results showed a decreased right ear advantage for word processing only in the
mixed condition and an increased left ear advantage for emotion processing in both attention
conditions for hits index. The mixed condition showed smaller laterality effects than the blocked
condition for words with respect to hits index, while increasing right ear predominance for intrusions.
The greater percentage of intrusions in the right ear for the word task and in the mixed condition
suggests that the right ear (left hemisphere) is most vulnerable to attention switching. We posit that
the attention manipulation has a greater effect on word processing than on emotion processing and
propose that ear advantages reflect a combination of the effects of attentional and structural
constraints on lateralisation.

Keywords: Attention; Emotion; Hemispheric specialisation; Language; Top-down/bottom-up processing.

Dichotic listening (DL) is a method used to

estimate hemispheric specialisation for auditory
stimuli, in which two acoustically similar stimuli
are simultaneously presented to the two ears and
the participant is asked to identify, detect or
discriminate between them. Although both ears
are represented in both hemispheres, contralateral
projections are stronger than ipsilateral projections (Hugdahl et al., 2009). Thus, a right ear
advantage (REA), reflecting left hemisphere (LH)
specialisation, is usually observed for linguistic
material, whereas a left ear advantage (LEA),
reflecting right hemisphere (RH) specialisation,
often occurs for non-verbal material (Bryden &
MacRae, 1988). According to the structural model
(Kimura, 1967), when two similar acoustic stimuli
are presented to the two ears simultaneously, the

ipsilateral ear-to-hemisphere projections are suppressed, so that each ear projects more or less
exclusively to the opposite hemisphere. This
model has received a great deal of empirical
support (Hugdahl et al., 2000; Westerhausen et al.,
2009). However, some studies have questioned the
simple wiring account of ear advantage, in terms
of ear-to-hemisphere connections. Is ipsilateral
suppression for a given stimulus in either hemisphere partial or complete? To date, there is no
definitive data to answer this question, as evidence
from neuroanatomical studies (Jncke, Buchanan,
Lutz, & Shah, 2001; Pollmann, 2010) is incomplete
or conflicting.
In 1988, Bryden and MacRae introduced a DL
test that simultaneously exhibited LH specialisation for phonological processing of words and RH

Correspondence should be addressed to Rotem Leshem, Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52100,
Israel. Email: rotemlm@yahoo.com
This work was supported by an EU Marie-Curie International Fellowship [PIOF-GA-2009-236183] to Rotem Leshem. This study
was conducted while the author was a post doc fellow in Eran Zaidels Cognitive Neuroscience lab, in the Psychology Department at
UCLA. I wish to thank him deeply for his mentorship and support, especially in the conceptualisation of this study.
2013 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [Rotem Leshem] at 00:35 21 September 2013

LESHEM

specialisation for processing emotional prosodies/

intonations. This test, known as Dichotic Listening to Words and Affects (DLWA), consists of
four dichotically paired words (bower, dower,
power, tower) spoken in four different emotional
tones (sad, happy, angry, neutral). The task
requires the participant to identify the target
words (word task) or the target affects/emotions
(emotion task) in each ear. In normal participants,
a significant REA is exhibited on the word task
and a significant LEA on the emotion task
(Bryden & MacRae, 1988). Grimshaw, Kwassny,
Covell, and Johnson (2003) used Bryden and
MacRaes DLWA task to examine whether the
words and emotions were processed exclusively in
a single hemisphere or bilaterally. They found that
when participants processed words with a negative
emotional tone (sad), the typical REA was significantly attenuated due to a decrease in LH and
an increase in RH performance. They concluded
that the RH is normally capable of processing
words under some circumstances, such that both
hemispheres have this ability. RH involvement in
processing words in the DLWA task is supported
by behavioural (Hale, Zaidel, MacGough, Phillips,
& McCracken, 2006) and fMRI (Buchanan et al.,
2000) data. Other studies of both non-clinical
participants (Knecht et al., 2000) and individuals
with brain damage (Gazzaniga & Sperry, 1967)
similarly suggest that the RH can process certain
kinds of words.
However, few studies to date have examined
the effects of attention on ear advantages in the
DLWA task (Hale et al., 2006; Jncke, Buchanan,
Lutz, & Shah, 2001). To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study to compare the effect
of mixed and blocked attention-to-ear conditions
in the DLWA task. The goal of the present
experiment was therefore to compare the ear
advantages revealed by the task when attention
is directed to one ear at a time for a whole block
of trials (blocked condition) and when attention is
switched pseudo-randomly between the two ears
from trial to trial (mixed condition). In particular,
we focused on the effects of attention switching on
additional measures of cognitive control, namely,
conflict resolution and response inhibition.
In the focused-attention condition, the participant must focus attention on one ear at a time.
When a participant is required to detect verbal
stimuli in one ear, responses are believed to be
affected by endogenous top-down/attention-driven
verbal processes, which are associated with the LH

and therefore the right ear. Thus, attending to the

left ear during a verbal task creates interference
between the top-down/instruction-driven and the
bottom-up/stimulus-driven right ear dominance
(Bryden, Munhall, & Allard, 1983; Hugdahl &
Andersson, 1986; Hugdahl et al., 2000, 2009).
Conversely, attending to the right ear in a verbal
task facilitates the stimulus-driven REA (Hugdahl
et al., 2009; Westerhausen et al., 2009). Similarly,
when participants are asked to detect emotional
stimuli presented to the left ear, bottom-up processing and top-down processes are believed to
work synergistically, both facilitating an LEA. By
contrast, when instructed to detect emotional
stimuli presented to the right ear, participants
must overcome the bottom-up/stimulus-driven left
ear dominance. This condition creates a conflict
between bottom-up and top-down processes, and
its resolution is said to require cognitive control
(Miller & Cohen, 2001; Westerhausen et al., 2009).
Failure to resolve these conflicts in the focusedattention condition will likely result in increased
intrusion errors, i.e. positive responses when the
target occurs in the unattended ear. These intrusions reflect failure of top-down attentional processing to inhibit bottom-up processing. This
failure may be more likely to occur when attention
is switched between the two ears unpredictably in
the mixed condition, which seems to involve
a greater load on cognitive control (Hugdahl et al.,
2009).
The degree to which either hemisphere is
actually involved in processing the stimuli for
which it is not specialised depends on the complexity of the task, attention instructions and
the available resources within the hemispheres
(Hiscock & Kinsbourne, 2011; Hugdahl et al.,
2000). Hemispheric asymmetry is perhaps best
understood as a dynamic interaction between
bottom-up/stimuli-driven processes and top-down/
instruction-driven processes (Hugdahl et al., 2009;
Westerhausen et al., 2009). Previous imaging
studies have shown that performance on focusedattention DL tasks involves inferior parietal and
prefrontal cortex, indicating the existence of a
cortical attentional network (Hugdahl et al., 2000;
Jncke et al., 2001; Jncke & Shah, 2002). Thus,
DL is ideal for the study of cognitive factors, such
as attention, that may affect the basic stimulusdriven laterality effect.
Here, we employed a focused-attention paradigm in which participants had to detect the
target bower (word task) or the emotion sad

Downloaded by [Rotem Leshem] at 00:35 21 September 2013

LATERALITY IN DICHOTIC LISTENING TASK

(emotion task). We chose these targets because

they demonstrated the strongest REA and LEA,
respectively, in previous studies (Grimshaw et al.,
2003; Grimshaw, Sguin, & Godfrey, 2009). We
wanted to compare the effect of switching attention between the ears to blocking it in one ear, on
both word and emotion detection. If words are
processed bilaterally and negative emotions processed unilaterally (i.e. RH), then both attention
conditions should produce smaller ear differences
for correct responses (hits) as well as increased
intrusions in the word compared to the emotion
task. Specifically, if each hemisphere simultaneously processes task-relevant and yet different
stimuli, some form of interhemispheric conflict
during stimulus processing might occur. This may
limit the ability to control responses and increase
intrusions for word processing (Hale et al., 2006).
Also, if attention switching and conflict resolution
involve separate but interdependent mechanisms
of cognitive control, there should be a difference
between the percentage of correct responses (hits)
as well as intrusions in the two attention conditions.
Thus, we predicted that, compared to the blocked
condition, the mixed condition would be associated
with greater difficulty in modulating ear advantages
and in overcoming bottom-up stimulus-driven processes, resulting in greater ear differences, especially for emotion processing.
This study makes two important contributions.
First, the use of the both words and affects can add
a great deal to our current understanding of the
effects of attention on ear advantages, given that
almost all of that research to date has used
consonantvowel syllables as stimuli. Second, it
examines the effects of cognitive control on ear
advantage, as intrusions from the unattended ear
reflect failures of cognitive control. This has
implications for the use of DL when studying
attentional control in both normal and clinical
subgroups.

METHODS
Participants
Twenty-six undergraduate students, all native
English speakers, from the University of California, Los Angeles (20 students) and from the
International BA programme for US foreign
students, Bar-Ilan University, Israel (16 females;
mean age 21.1, range: 1928) participated in the

study. All participants completed a shortened

version of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory
(Oldfield, 1971). This version involves a sevenitem scale with potential scores ranging from 14,
indicating maximum left handedness, to 14, indicating maximum right handedness (0 indicates
ambidextrous status). Only participants scoring
between 12 and 14 were included. None of the
participants reported a history of neurological
illness or hearing deficits.

Dichotic listening to words and affects

Stimuli included the words bower, dower,
power and tower, spoken in sad, happy, angry
and neutral voices (Bryden & MacRae, 1988).
Stimuli were presented through Mller headphones, on a 3.00 GHz Intel Pentium D personal
computer, running Windows XP, using E-Prime
2.0 software (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto,
2002). We used a 17-inch LCD monitor with a
refresh rate of 75 Hz and a resolution of 1280
1024 pixels. Stimuli were digitised in 16 bits at a
sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, and edited to a
common duration of 500 ms. The original stimulus
list included 144 distinct pairings. To highlight the
contrast between trials that included the targets in
the unattended ear and those that included no
targets at all, we used a balanced stimulus set
consisting of 72 targets, 72 potential intrusions and
48 simple non-targets, yielding a total of 192 trials.

Procedure
First, all participants were presented with a 1 Khz
sine wave audio tone through headphones to
ensure equal hearing in both ears, and to allow
modification or calibration on one or both of
the two channels if necessary. All participants
reported equal hearing at the standardised balance
level. Participants were then introduced to each of
the 16 types of stimuli presented binaurally, with
error feedback provided after each trial. If a
mistake was made, the binaural set was presented
again. Next, there was a practice block of 10
dichotic pairs with error feedback provided after
each trial. The task required participants to detect
the target word bower (word task) or the target
emotion sad (emotion task) by pressing Yes
on the keyboard with the index finger when the
target occurred in the attended ear and No on

Downloaded by [Rotem Leshem] at 00:35 21 September 2013

LESHEM

the keyboard with the middle finger otherwise.

Responses were made using the right (dominant)
hand. Each participant received four blocks, corresponding to four combinations of target and ear:
(1) target word in the left ear, (2) target word in
the right ear, (3) target emotion in the left ear and
(4) target emotion in the right ear.
These combinations were presented in two
experimental conditions. In the blocked condition,
participants attended to one ear for an entire
block of 192 trials, and then to the other ear for
the following block of 192 trials. In the mixed
condition, attention was directed alternately to
one or the other ear within the same block of
trials. The mixed condition included 192 + 192 =
384 trials. The attended ear in both the blocked
and mixed conditions was signalled by an arrow
(endogenous) presented briefly to the left or right
of fixation and by a simultaneous tone (exogenous). The order of attention conditions was counterbalanced across participants, as was the order
of attended ear in the blocked condition.
Each trial consisted of four events. First, the
fixation mark was presented in the middle of the
screen for 500 ms, followed by a visual arrow cue
and an auditory beep directing attention to the left
or to the right ear, presented for 100 ms. After a
250 ms delay, the participant had 2500 ms to
respond to the stimulus. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was set at 350 ms, to unify the
effects of the exogenous and endogenous cues and
to allow enough time to orient attention (Mller &
Rabbitt, 1989). Thus, the average trial lasted
3300 ms. Overall, the experiment took approximately 80 minutes to complete.

Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity ( <

.75). Significant interactions were followed up with
paired t-tests, with a Bonferroni correction at .05.
We addressed how often participants correctly
detected targets and how quickly they responded
on such trials (hits). Next, we addressed the
number of times participants failed to inhibit their
responses when the correct target was presented
in the unattended ear (intrusions) during focusedattention conditions.
Accuracy LI for each task AC was calculated
as the percentage difference between right (R)
and left (L) ear scores, as follows:
LI R  L=R L if R L  1 and
LI R  L=1  R 1  L if R L > 1:
Responses with latencies shorter than 150 ms
were regarded as premature anticipatory responses
and were excluded from analysis. Responses with
latencies more than three standard deviations
above the sample mean were regarded as distractions and were excluded from analysis as well.
Gender was initially included as a betweensubjects factor, but showed no significant main
effects or interactions and was subsequently
removed from the analyses.
Table 1 presents the significant effects of the
basic ANOVAs for each of the dependent variables, and reports means (SDs), effect sizes and
95% confidence interval.

RESULTS
Proportion hits

Statistical analysis
The data were analysed with two separate univariate repeated measures analyses of variance
(ANOVAs). The first ANOVA consisted of
task (emotions, words)attention condition (AC)
(mixed, blocked)ear (left, right). The dependent
variables were proportion hits, proportion intrusions (positive responses when the target occurs in
the unattended ear), and median latency of hits.
The second ANOVA contained task (emotions,
words) (AC) (mixed, blocked) with the laterality
index (LI) for correct responses (hits) as the
dependent variable. Separate univariate repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
were carried out for each dependent variable.
Degrees of freedom were corrected using

There were significant two-way task ear and

AC ear interactions, which were qualified by a
significant three-way task AC ear interaction
(Table 1), showing a significant LEA for emotions
in both the blocked condition, t(25) = 2.9, p =
.007, d = .58, CI [.13, .02] and the mixed
condition, t(25) = 4.3, p < .001, d = .84, CI
[.13, .05], and a significant REA for words in the
blocked condition, t(25) = 2.8, p = .009, d = .56, CI
[.03, .16], but no significant difference between
ears in the mixed condition, t(25) =.06, p = .95,
(Figure 1A). Furthermore, a two-way ANOVA
analysing the LI revealed significant main effects
of task, F(1, 25) = 10.7, p = .003, 2 = .30, and AC,
F(1, 25) = 10.7, p = .002, 2 = .33, showing greater
laterality difference for emotions than for words,

LATERALITY IN DICHOTIC LISTENING TASK

TABLE 1
Results of 2 (task) 2 (AC) 2 (ear) analysis of variance (ANOVA).
95% CI
Task
Proportion hits
Task ear
Emotion

Ear

Left
Right
Left
Right

.823
.742
.599
.646

Left
Right
Left
Right

Word

Downloaded by [Rotem Leshem] at 00:35 21 September 2013

AC

AC ear

Mixed

Blocked

Task AC ear
Emotion

Mixed
Blocked

Word

Mixed
Blocked

Latency for hits

Task ear
Emotion

Word
Proportion intrusions
Task ear
Emotion

Word
AC ear

Mixed

Blocked

Mean (SD)

Lower bound

Upper bound

(.154)
(.173)
(.157)
(.174)

.761
.672
.536
.576

.885
.812
.663
.716

.702
.659
.720
.729

(.144)
(.149)
(.131)
(.159)

.643
.599
.667
.665

.760
.719
.773
.794

Left
Right
Left
Right
Left
Right
Left
Right

.798
.710
.848
.774
.606
.608
.593
.684

(.169)
(.164)
(.152)
(.194)
(.167)
(.181)
(.171)
(.200)

.729
.644
.787
.696
.538
.534
.523
.603

.866
.777
.910
.853
.673
.681
.662
.765

Left
Right
Left
Right

795
847
847
818

(99.09)
(110.1)
(161.5)
(146.2)

755
803
782
759

835
892
913
877

Left
Right
Left
Right

.122
.131
.239
.319

(.115)
(.117)
(.105)
(.102)

.085
.075
.277
.198

.178
.170
.362
.280

Left
Right
Left
Right

.183
.250
.179
.201

(.093)
(.122)
(.095)
(.089)

.200
.145
.165
.140

.299
.220
.237
.217

11.74

.32

.002

11.25

.31

.003

4.74

.16

.039

11.05

.31

.003

19.37

.44

<.001

6.83

.22

.015

CI = confidence interval; all df = 1; Proportion intrusions: right ear intrusions while focusing attention to the left ear indicate
interference by a target in the unattended right ear, whereas a left ear intrusions while attending to the right ear indicate
interference by a target in the unattended left ear.

and for the mixed than the blocked condition

(Figure 1B).

Latency for hits

There was a significant two-way task ear interaction, showing a significantly faster reaction time
in the left ear than in the right ear for emotion
detection, t(25) = 4.3, p < .001, d = .85, CI [.78,
28], whereas there was no significant difference
between the right ear and the left ear for word
detection, t(25) = 1.4, p = .20.

Proportion intrusions
There was a significant two-way task ear interaction, showing significantly more intrusions coming from the right than from the left ear in the
word task, t(25) = 5.5, p < .001, d = 1.1, CI [.05,
.11], but no significant difference between ears for
the emotion task, t(25) = .64, p = .53. There was
also a significant two-way AC ear interaction,
showing significantly more intrusions coming from
the right than the left ear in the mixed condition,
t(25) = 4.9, p < .001, d = .98, CI [.04, .09], whereas

Downloaded by [Rotem Leshem] at 00:35 21 September 2013

LESHEM

Figure 2. Mean proportion of intrusions index for task ear

and attention condition ear interactions. (A) Signicantly
more intrusions in the right than the left ear for the word task
alongside a non-signicant difference between the ears for the
emotion task. (B) Signicantly more intrusions in the right than
the left ear in the mixed condition alongside a non-signicant
difference between the ears for the blocked condition. Small
bars, standard error of the mean; **p < .001.

Figure 1. (A) Mean proportion of correct responses (hits) in

each task, attention condition, and ear combination, showing
signicant LEA in both mixed and blocked condition in the
emotion task and a signicant REA in the word task in the
blocked but non-signicant REA in the mixed condition. (B)
Laterality index (LI) for the two tasks and the two attention
conditions. One-sample t-tests revealed a signicant LEA for
the emotion task, t(25) = 4.1, p < .001, d = .80, CI[.31, .10],
but non-signicant REA for the word task, t(25) = .13,
p = .13. Also, there was a signicant LEA for the mixed
condition, t(25) = 3.1, p = .005, d = .61, CI[.20, .04], but no
signicant difference between the ears for the blocked condition, t(25) = .11, p = .91. Small bars, standard error of the mean;
LI > 0 indicates that the right ear score is greater than the left
ear score; **p < .001, *p < .005.

there was no significant difference between the

ears in the blocked condition, t(25) = 1.5, p = .15
(Figure 2).

DISCUSSION
The goal of the present study was to examine how
laterality effects in the DLWA task change as a
function of switching attention from one ear to the
other. We found a significant task AC ear
interaction for hits index, reflecting an LEA for
the emotion task in both attention conditions, and
an REA for words in the blocked condition
alongside a non-significant REA in the mixed
condition. In accordance with our first prediction,
the difference between the ears in percentage of

hits was smaller in the word task than in the

emotion task. This is in keeping with findings
showing that both hemispheres are capable of
processing words (e.g. Buchanan et al., 2000;
Gazzaniga & Sperry, 1967). In particular, this
may be the case for emotionally charged words,
such as those presented in our word task. The
intrusions index also revealed a task ear interaction reflecting significantly more intrusions coming from the right than the left ear for the word
task, whereas the ear on which participants
focused attention had no effect in the emotion
task. This finding also seems to support the
possibility that during this paradigm, words are
processed bilaterally, whereas emotions are processed unilaterally. Specifically, because the word
task involves both hemispheres in processing taskrelevant stimuli, there are fewer controlled
responses that may increase the occurrence of
intrusions. Because the emotion task primarily
involves an RH mechanism, the direction of focus
(left or right ear) has no effect on the occurrence
of intrusions. The LEA in both attention conditions and the faster reaction time and accuracy
(LI) in the left than the right ear, strengthens the
possibility that the left ear/RH have superiority in
processing auditory emotional stimuli. This supports findings that emotional prosody can be
processed automatically, independently of attention (Gdeke, Fcker, & Rder, 2013; Mitchell,
Elliott, Barry, Cruttenden, & Woodruff, 2003;
Sander et al., 2005).
The fact that there was no significant ear
difference in intrusions on the emotion task may

Downloaded by [Rotem Leshem] at 00:35 21 September 2013

LATERALITY IN DICHOTIC LISTENING TASK

suggest that there are combined effects of voluntary attention/top-down processes and automatic
attention/bottom-up processes. To suppress targets
in the unattended ear, it is necessary to engage
cognitive control processes, especially when the
target is in the ear contraleteral to the dominant
hemisphere (Hugdahl et al., 2009). Thus, it seems
that emotion and attention can both exert separate
modulatory influences on auditory processing
(Gdeke et al., 2013; Sander et al., 2005). When
a target had to be detected, bottom-up/stimulidriven processes took precedence over top-down/
instruction-driven processes. Conversely, when the
target had to be ignored, top-down/instructiondriven processes modulated bottom-up/stimulidriven processes, as reflected in fewer intrusions
in the unattended ear, regardless of attention
condition. This ability of the RH to overcome
stimuli-driven responses in the unattended ear
elucidates how attentional control may interact
with emotion processing.
With respect to words, the blocked condition
accentuated the REA, whereas the mixed condition eliminated the REA. This can also be
explained by a combination of the attentional
and structural constraints. It is widely accepted
that the blocked condition strengthens selective
attention to the attended ear (Hugdahl et al., 2000,
2009). If emotionally charged words involve both
RH and LH, it may be that directing attention to
the right ear for an entire block of trials enhances
LH (specialised for verbal processing) activity,
whereas focusing attention to the left ear does
not change RH involvement, resulting in an
REA. Conversely, the mixed condition emphasises
attentional switching between the ears such that
attention and expectation differ systematically
from trial to trial, requiring additional cognitive
resources and creating a more demanding task
than in the blocked condition. The absence of the
REA in the mixed condition but not in the
blocked condition suggests that attentional factors
can override the basic REA asymmetry, providing
evidence for top-down instruction modulation of a
bottom-up/stimulus-driven effect. This is in line
with DL studies using forced-attention conditions
(but not necessarily the same task and paradigm)
in normal participants, which showed that attention
can dramatically affect ear advantage for words
(Bryden et al., 1983; Hugdahl et al., 2000, 2009).
In relation to our second prediction, the two
attention conditions differentially modulated

performance for emotions and words with respect

to both the hits and intrusions indices. With
respect to correct responses, we found a greater
difference between the ears in the mixed than in
the blocked condition for emotions. For words,
there was greater difference between the ears in
the blocked than in the mixed condition. The
intrusions index yielded a significant AC ear
interaction, reflecting more intrusions in the right
than in the left ear only in the mixed condition.
The intrusions in the mixed condition suggest
failure of top-down/attention-driven processing to
inhibit bottom-up/stimulus-driven processing (Bryden et al., 1983; Hugdahl et al., 2000). It therefore
seems that attention switching and conflict resolution are interdependent aspects of cognitive control (Wager & Joindes, & Reading, 2004), and that
instruction-driven or top-down processing strategies modulate stimulus-driven or bottom-up
processing strategies less effectively in the mixed
than in the blocked condition. Also, the fact that
there were more intrusions in the right than in the
left ear for the word task and in the mixed
condition suggest that the right ear/LH is most
vulnerable to attention switching. Indeed, the
attenuation or absence of the REA is used as
a measure of cognitive dysfunction in brain
damaged patients and also to reveal cognitive
impairments in psychiatric patients (Hale et al.,
2006; Hugdahl et al., 2000).
Overall, in this study it appears that emotion
processing was controlled by bottom-up/stimulidriven processes and was less sensitive to attentional manipulation. Conversely, word processing
was most affected by attentional manipulation, as
reflected in the difference in ear advantages
between the two attention conditions. Specifically,
in the blocked condition the ear advantage is
related more to perception of stimulus, whereas
in the mixed condition the ear advantage is related
more to response selection affected by top-down
attention processes. More specifically, this suggests
that top-down/instruction-driven attentional processes can modulate the bottom-up/stimuli-driven
ear advantage for words. The fact that the right
ear/LH is more vulnerable to attention switching
and conflict resolution may suggest that the mixed
condition relies on top-down cognitive effects of
the LH, and that the two attention conditions are
associated with different forms of cognitive functioning that are attributed to bottom-up and topdown cognitive processes, especially for word

Downloaded by [Rotem Leshem] at 00:35 21 September 2013

LESHEM

processing. Thus, the ear advantages are not

simply a reflection of hemispheric function or of
an attentional bias for processing type (words/
emotions), but rather a combination of the effects
of attentional and structural constraints on
lateralisation.
These conclusions need to be confirmed and
extended. The paradigm used in this study allows
us to examine emotional words and cognitive
processes that can clarify attention effects on ear
advantages, potentially providing answers to questions that have yet to be addressed. First, we
recommend the inclusion of a divided attention
condition, to which the effects of the focusedattention paradigm performed in this study can be
compared statistically. Second, we used both exogenous and endogenous cues to maximise the
effect of cue, and thus of attention. However,
one cannot be sure that our focused-attention data
are entirely free of attentional bias. It could be
argued that the use of an exogenous cue, a brief
tone presented to the attended side 150 ms before
each trial, would more effectively control the
influence of attention (Mondor & Bryden, 1992).
In many DL experiments, attention to one ear is
specified by endogenous cues (e.g. instructions)
(Hugdahl & Andersson, 1986) or by exogenous
cues (Mondor & Bryden, 1992). Thus, future
studies of the DLWA task using focused-attention
paradigms should include both exogenous and
endogenous cueing at different SOAs, to examine
the optimal cueing conditions for controlling
attention. It will be particularly interesting to
examine differences between mixed and blocked
conditions in the timing of cue-to-target intervals,
to control the influence of attention most effectively. This will help validate our results regarding
the effects of mixed and blocked conditions on
ear advantages. Finally, the conditions and neural
architectures that support shifts of hemispheric
control to the unspecialised hemisphere remain
unknown. Thus, combined behavioural and neuroimaging studies hold the most promise for
extending our understanding of the effects of
attention on the interaction between top-down
and bottom-up attentional systems in DL tasks,
in both normal and clinical populations.
Original manuscript received February
Revised manuscript received June
Revised manuscript accepted August
First published online September

2013
2013
2013
2013

REFERENCES
Bryden, M. P., & MacRae, L. (1988). Dichotic laterality
effects obtained with emotional words. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology,
1, 171176.
Bryden, M. P., Munhall, K., & Allard, F. (1983).
Attentional biases and the right-ear effect in dichotic listening. Brain and Language, 18, 236248.
doi:10.1016/0093-934X(83)90018-4
Buchanan, T. W., Lutz, K., Mirzazade, S., Specht, K.,
Shah, N. J., Zilles, K., & Jncke, L. (2000). Recognition of emotional prosody and verbal components
of spoken language: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain
Research, 9, 227238. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(99)000
60-9
Gdeke, J. C., Fcker, J., & Rder, B. (2013). Is the
processing of affective prosody influenced by spatial
attention? An ERP study. BMC Neuroscience, 14(1),
115. doi:10.1186/1471-2202-14-1
Gazzaniga, M. S., & Sperry, R. W. (1967). Language
after section of the cerebral commissures. Brain, 90
(1), 131148. doi:10.1093/brain/90.1.131
Grimshaw, G. M., Kwassny, K. M., Covell, E. D., &
Johnson, R. A. (2003). The dynamic nature of
language lateralization: Effects of lexical and prosodic
factors. Neuropsychologia, 41, 10081019. doi:10.1016/
S0028-3932(02)00315-9
Grimshaw, G. M., Sguin, J. A., & Godfrey, H. K.
(2009). Once more with feeling: The effects of
emotional prosody on hemispheric specialisation for
linguistic processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22,
313326. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.10.005
Hale, T. S., Zaidel, E., McGough, J. J., Phillips, J. M., &
McCracken, J. T. (2006). A typical brain laterality
in adults with ADHD during dichotic listening for
emotional intonation and words. Neuropsychologia,
44, 896904. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.
08.014
Hiscock, M., & Kinsbourne, M. (2011). Attention and
the right-ear advantage: What is the connection?.
Brain and Cognition, 76, 263275. doi:10.1016/j.
bandc.2011.03.016
Hugdahl, K., & Andersson, L. (1986). The forcedattention paradigm in dichotic listening to CVsyllables: A comparison between adults and children.
Cortex, 22, 417432. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(86)
80005-3
Hugdahl, K., Law, I., Kyllingsbaek, S., Bronnick, K.,
Gade, A., & Paulson, O. B. (2000). Effects of attention
on dichotic listening: An15O-PET study. Human Brain
Mapping, 10(2), 8797. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193
(200006)10:2<87::AID-HBM50>3.0.CO;2-V
Hugdahl, K., Westerhausen, R., Alho, K., Medvedev, S.,
Laine, M., & Hamalainen, H. (2009). Attention and
cognitive control: Unfolding the dichotic listening
story. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(1),
1122. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00676.x
Jncke, L., Buchanan, T. W., Lutz, K., & Shah, N. J.
(2001). Focused and nonfocused attention in verbal
and emotional dichotic listening: An FMRI study.
Brain and Language, 78, 349363. doi:10.1006/
brln.2000.2476

Downloaded by [Rotem Leshem] at 00:35 21 September 2013

LATERALITY IN DICHOTIC LISTENING TASK

Jncke, L., & Shah, N. J. (2002). Does dichotic listening

probe temporal lobe functions? Neurology, 58(5),
736743. doi:10.1212/WNL.58.5.736
Knecht, S., Deppe, M., Drager, B., Bobe, L., Lohmann,
H., Ringelstein, E., & Henningsen, H. (2000). Language lateralization in healthy right-handers. Brain,
123(1), 7481. doi:10.1093/brain/123.1.74
Kimura, D. (1967). Functional asymmetry of the brain in
dichotic listening. Cortex, 3(2), 163178. doi:10.1016/
S0010-9452(67)80010-8
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative
theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review
of Neuroscience, 24(1), 167202. doi:10.1146/annurev.
neuro.24.1.167
Mitchell, R. L., Elliott, R., Barry, M., Cruttenden, A., &
Woodruff, P. W. (2003). The neural response to
emotional prosody, as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuropsychologia, 41(10),
14101421. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(03)00017-4
Mondor, T. A., & Bryden, M. P. (1992). On the relation
between auditory spatial attention and auditory
perceptual asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics,
52(4), 393402. doi:10.3758/BF03206699
Mller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. (1989). Reflexive and
voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course
of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 15, 315330. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.15.
2.315

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). Assessment and analysis of

handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97113. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)
90067-4
Pollmann, S. (2010). A unified structural-attentional
framework for dichotic listening. In K. Hugdahl &
R. Westerhausen (Eds.), The two halves of the brain:
Information processing in the cerebral hemispheres
(pp. 441468). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sander, D., Grandjean, D., Pourtois, G., Schwartz, S.,
Seghier, M. L., Scherer, K. R., & Vuilleumier, P.
(2005). Emotion and attention interactions in social
cognition: Brain regions involved in processing anger
prosody. Neuroimage, 28, 848858. doi:10.1016/j.
neuroimage.2005.06.023
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002).
E-Prime computer software and manual. Pittsburgh,
PA: Psychology Software Tools.
Wager, T. D., Jonides, J., & Reading, S. (2004).
Neuroimaging studies of shifting attention: A metaanalysis. NeuroImage, 22(4), 16791693. doi:10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2004.03.052
Westerhausen, R., Moosmann, M., Alho, K., Medvedev, S., Hamalainen, H., & Hugdahl, K. (2009).
Top-down and bottom-up interaction: Manipulating the dichotic listening ear advantage. Brain
Research, 1250, 183189. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.
10.070