Anticlockwise or clockwise? A dynamic Perception-Action-Laterality model for directionality bias in visuospatial functioning

Abstract

Orientation bias and directionality bias are two fundamental functional characteristics of the visual system. Reviewing the relevant literature in visual psychophysics and visual neuroscience we propose here a three-stage model of directionality bias in visuospatial functioning. We call this model the 'Perception-Action-Laterality' (PAL) hypothesis. We analyzed the research findings for a wide range of visuospatial tasks, showing that there are two major directionality trends in perceptual preference: clockwise versus anticlockwise. It appears these preferences are combinatorial, such that a majority of people fall in the first category demonstrating a preference for stimuli/objects arranged from left-to-right rather than from right-to-left, while people in the second category show an opposite trend. These perceptual biases can guide sensorimotor integration and action, creating two corresponding turner groups in the population. In support of PAL, we propose another model explaining the origins of the biases - how the neurogenetic factors and the cultural factors interact in a biased competition framework to determine the direction and extent of biases. This dynamic model can explain not only the two major categories of biases in terms of direction and strength, but also the unbiased, unreliably biased or mildly biased cases in visuosptial functioning.

Keywords: Aesthetics; Anticlockwise; Bisection; Cerebral lateralization; Clockwise; Directionality bias; Dopamine; Dynamic model; Genes; Heritability; Mental number line; Neurogenetic; Orientation; Plasticity; Pseudoneglect; Rotation; Sensorimotor; Space mapping; Turning; Visuospatial perception.

Figure 1

Example stimuli used in aesthetic judgment experiment of Christman and Pinger, 1997. (A) Top: right-biased weight, left-biased interest, and left-to-right directionality, Bottom: left-biased weight, right-biased interest, and right-to-left directionality. (B) Top: left-biased weight, balanced interest, and right-to-left directionality, Bottom: right-biased weight, balanced interest, and left-to-right directionality. (C) Top: absent weight, right-biased interest, and absent directionality, Bottom: absent weight, left-biased interest, and absent directionality. (D) Top: balanced weight, absent interest, and left-to-right directionality, Bottom: balanced weight, absent interest, and right-to-left directionality (From Christman & Pinger, 1997, with permission).

Figure 2

Sample aesthetic preference items. Subjects were presented pictures from three categories: (A) pictures representing moving objects, (B) pictures representing static objects, and (C) pictures representing landscapes (From Chokron & De Agostini, 2000, with permission).

Figure 3

Schematic of the directionality bias in vernier offset detection at different orientations. (A) 0°, 90°, +45° and −45° oriented configurations in which average performance was better; LU-RD = configuration at 0° orientation with Left feature Up vs. Right feature Down, UR-LL = configuration at 90° orientation with Upper feature to Right vs. Lower feature to Left, ULR-LRL = configuration at +45° orientation with Upper Left feature to Right vs. Lower Right feature to Left, URR-LLL = configuration at –45° orientation with Upper Right feature to Right vs. Lower Left feature to Left. (B) 0°, 90°, + 45° and − 45° oriented configurations in which average performance was worse; LD-RU = configuration at 0° orientation with Left feature Down vs. Right feature Up UL-LR = configuration at 90° orientation with Upper feature to Left vs. Lower feature to Right, ULL-LRR = configuration at +45° orientation with Upper Left feature to Left vs. Lower Right feature to Right. URL-LLR = configuration at –45° with Upper Right feature to Left vs. Lower Left feature to Right. The dashed circles with an arrow mark in the left and right portions of the figure indicate the clockwise (A) and anticlockwise (B) directionality of the offset stimuli. The figure is based on research reviewed in text by Karim & Kojima (2010a,b).

Figure 4

Random number generation during head turning. (A) Each participant performed two runs, a baseline and a head-turning condition, in counterbalanced order. In the baseline condition, participants generated random numbers while keeping the head straight. In the head-turning condition (leftward or rightward), participants generated a random number at each turning point of the sinusoidal movement. Half of the participants received the instruction that imagination of a ruler with 30 units might facilitate their performance (‘Ruler’ group), whereas no such information was given to the remaining participants (‘No ruler’ group). (B) There was an increase in small numbers for left turns compared to baseline, but a decrease for right turns. Subjects in both groups generated significantly more small numbers after left turns than after right turns (From Loetscher, Schwarz, Schubiger, & Brugger, 2008, with permission).

Figure 5

Laterality of predatory behavior in cuttlefishes (Sepia lycidas, from Lucky et al., 2012, with permission).

Figure 6

A three-stage (Perception (of spatial–mapping)–Action–Laterality (turning)) model of directionality bias in visuospatial functioning. P= Person who perceives the world, develops spatial maps, and/or turns to a particular direction; T= Target room; L= Left side of P or T; R= Right side of P or T; LADL shows a clockwise (left-to-right) direction from P to T; RBCR shows an anticlockwise (right-to-left) direction from P to T.

Figure 7

A hypothetical model of the interaction between neurobiological or neurogenetic factors and environmental or cultural factors that determine the direction and extent of biases in visuospatial functioning. ACW refers to anticlockwise, ‘+’ stands for favorable, and ‘–’ stands for unfavorable. So, ‘ACW+’ indicates that the factors favor the development of an anticlockwise bias, and ‘ACW−’ indicates that the factors inhibit the development of an anticlockwise bias in favor of the clockwise. (I) Both neurobiological/neurogenetic factors and environmental/cultural factors inhibit the development of an anticlockwise (ACW− −) bias, in favor of a strong clockwise bias. (II) Both neurobiological/neurogenetic factors and environmental/cultural factors favor the development of an anticlockwise (ACW++) bias, promoting the person to be strongly anticlockwise. (III) Neurobiological/neurogenetic factors favor the development of an anticlockwise bias against the clockwise influences of the environmental/cultural factors (ACW+ −), leading the person to be unbiased, unrelaibly or mildly bias to some direction (for an explanation of the direction, see the text above). (IV) Environmental/cultural factors favor the development of an anticlockwise bias against the clockwise influences of the neurobiological or neurogenetic factors (ACW− +), leading again the person to be unbiased, unreliably or mildly bias to some direction (for an explanation of the direction, see the text above).