The differences between Gifted and normal students in word processing according to attention capacity, interhemispheric transmission times and handiness

Mohamed, Tarik N.

doi:10.21608/jealex.2019.165764

The differences between Gifted and normal students in word processing according to attention capacity, interhemispheric transmission times and handiness

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Tarik N. Mohamed

Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology - Faculty of Education - Sohag University

10.21608/jealex.2019.165764

Abstract

The current study aimed at studying the effect of word length and handiness’ on interhemispheric transmission times between Gifted and Normal students. The study sample consisted of 30 gifted and 30 normal students. To specify the gifted students, a collection of scales were used which includes a list of behavioral characteristics of gifted students, Ibraham's creative thinking test, the sequential Raven Matrix of Intelligence. The study included interhemispheric transmission of the different word length and handiness (right - left) for both gifted and normal students. Results showed that there are differences in the time of interhemispheric transmission among gifted students. These results suggested that gifted students have the ability to process information faster than normal students.

Keywords

References

Baker, M., Kapse, K., McMahon, A., & O'Boyle, M. (2012). Connectivity in math-gifted adolescents: Comparing structural equation modeling, granger causality, and dynamic causal modeling. In (pp. 93-96). IEEE.
Barnett, K. J. & Corballis, M. C. (2005). Speeded right-to-left information transfer: the result of speeded transmission in right-hemisphere axons? Neuroscience Letters, 380, 88-92.
Chaumillon, R., Alahyane, N., Senot, P., Vergne, J., Lemoine-Lardennois, C., Blouin, J. et al. (2017). Asymmetry in visual information processing depends on the strength of eye dominance. Neuropsychologia, 96, 129-136.
Chaumillon, R., Blouin, J., & Guillaume, A. (2018). Interhemispheric transfer time asymmetry of visual information depends on eye dominance: an electrophysiological study. Frontiers in neuroscience, 12, 72.
Erbil, N. & Yagcioglu, S. (2016). Connectivity measures in the Poffenberger paradigm indicate hemispheric asymmetries. Functional neurology, 31, 249.
Friedrich, P., Ocklenburg, S., Mochalski, L., Schl++ter, C., G++nt++rk++n, O., & Genc, E. (2017). Long-term reliability of the visual EEG Poffenberger paradigm. Behavioural brain research, 330, 85-91.
Geffen, G., Bradshaw, J. L., & Nettleton, N. C. (1973). Attention and hemispheric differences in reaction time during simultaneous audio-visual tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 404-412.
Geffen, G., Bradshaw, J. L., & Wallace, G. (1971). Interhemispheric effects on reaction time to verbal and nonverbal visual stimuli. Journal of experimental psychology, 87, 415.
Hillyard, S. A. (2010). Interhemispheric Cooperation Following Brain Bisection. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Mind, 25.

10. Jin, S. H., Kwon, Y. J., Jeong, J. S., Kwon, S. W., & Shin, D. H. (2006). Differences in brain information transmission between gifted and normal children during scientific hypothesis generation. Brain and cognition, 62, 191-197.

11. Larson, E. B. & Brown, W. S. (1997). Bilateral field interactions, hemispheric specialization and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission time. Neuropsychologia, 35, 573-581.

12. Leblanc-Sirois, Y., Braun, C. M., & Elie-Fortier, J. (2018). Effects of stimulus pair orientation and hand switching on reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transfer. Experimental brain research, 1-10.

13. Marzi, C. A., Bisiacchi, P., & Nicoletti, R. (1991). Is interhemispheric transfer of visuomotor information asymmetric? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia, 29, 1163-1177.

14. Meissner, T. W., Friedrich, P., Ocklenburg, S., Gen+º, E., & Weigelt, S. (2017). Tracking the Functional Development of the Corpus Callosum in Children Using Behavioral and Evoked Potential Interhemispheric Transfer Times. Developmental neuropsychology, 42, 172-186.

15. Mohamed, I. S., Cheyne, D., Gaetz, W. C., Otsubo, H., Logan, W. J., Carter, S. O., III et al. (2008). Spatiotemporal patterns of oscillatory brain activity during auditory word recognition in children: a synthetic aperture magnetometry study. Int.J.Psychophysiol., 68, 141-148.

16. Mohamed, T. (2018a). Combined effects of selective attention and repetition on event-related potenials of arabic words processing. Neuropsychological Trends, 23, 83-96.

17. Mohamed, T. (2018b). The influence of perceptual load on the orthographic complexity of Arabic words processing: ERP Evidence. Neuropsychologica Trends, 24, &.

18. Nowicka, A., Grabowska, A., & Fersten, E. (1996). Interhemispheric transmission of information and functional asymmetry of the human brain. Neuropsychologia, 34, 147-151.

19. O'boyle, M. W., Alexander, J. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Enhanced right hemisphere activation in the mathematically precocious: A preliminary EEG investigation. Brain and cognition, 17, 138-153.

20. Ringo, J. L., Doty, R. W., Demeter, S., & Simard, P. Y. (1994). Time is of the essence: a conjecture that hemispheric specialization arises from interhemispheric conduction delay. Cerebral Cortex, 4, 331-343.

21. Singh, H. (2000). Differences in interhemispheric interaction during visual information processing in mathematically gifted youth, average ability adolescents, and college students.

22. Singh, H. & O'boyle, M. W. (2004). Interhemispheric interaction during global-local processing in mathematically gifted adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students. Neuropsychology, 18, 371.

23. slauriers-Gauthier, S. & Deriche, R. (2019). Estimation of axonal conduction speed and the inter hemispheric transfer time using connectivity informed maximum entropy on the mean. In (pp. 109530E). International Society for Optics and Photonics.

24. Thomas, C. L., Bourdeau, A. M., & Tagler, M. J. (2019). Interhemispheric communication and the preference for attitude consistent information. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 24, 342-354.

25. Weber, B., Treyer, V., Oberholzer, N., Jaermann, T., Boesiger, P., Brugger, P. et al. (2005). Attention and interhemispheric transfer: a behavioral and fMRI study. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 17, 113-123.

26. Zhang, L., Gan, J. Q., & Wang, H. (2017). Neurocognitive mechanisms of mathematical giftedness: A literature review. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 6, 79-94.