The perceptual window extends approximately 13 letters to the right of fixation and 6 letters to the left of fixation.
Moreover, the expected value associated with a particular spatial response (a left hand response for stimuli presented to the left of fixation or a right hand response for stimuli to the right of fixation) but not the executed response itself, was lateralised to the contralateral MFC (Palminteri et al., 2009).
Split-foveal processing in these languages would not produce the paradox of projecting beginning letter information to the RH because, when a word is fixated, beginning letters would now fall to the right of fixation, and so project to the LH (if the split-fovea view were correct).
After pressing the space bar, a black fixation cross and two placeholders, one to the left and one to the right of fixation, were presented.
As in Experiment 1, the predictions were straightforward: If a functional division in hemispheric processing exists right up to fixation, performance should be superior for words displayed to the right of fixation in extrafoveal and foveal locations.
Consequently, if a functional division in hemispheric processing exists right up to fixation, performance should be superior for words displayed to the right of fixation in extrafoveal and foveal locations.
These experiments produced a strong recognition advantage for words presented to the right of fixation in extrafoveal vision but not for the same words presented to the right of fixation in foveal vision.
To those unfamiliar with these issues, it may seem as though the right's fixation on rape, the pill, and ultrasounds has sprung out of nowhere.
Experiment 1 showed that Arabic words in extrafoveal locations were recognised more accurately when displayed to the right of fixation.
In textual reading of Latinate languages, partial pre-processing of words to the right of fixation may provide some pre-activation of LH processing.
