№ 5 / 2014 / 11-16

Hemispheric aspects of interference information in persons differenced by rational and irrational cognitive styles

Author: Yashanina A.A.¹, Razumnikova O.M.²

Abstract

Hemispheric characteristics of the information interference in depending on the dominance of rational or irrational thinking styles (according to the Jung’s personality typology) were studied. The attention hemispheric characteristics were determined with lateralized presentation of hierarchically organized letters. Differently directed relationship between interference effect and the intensity of cognitive style has been established. Large scores of the irrational «sensation» function are corresponded to an interference increase while interhemispheric information exchanging whereas large values of rational «thinking» function – to a decrease while stimuli addressing as the left and right hemisphere. People with «feeling» dominance have maximal interference effect due to conflict between noncongruent and congruent stimuli at the global level selection as well as between local and global attention under interhemispheric exchange of information.

Key words

attention, cognitive style, hemispheric interaction, selection information, Jung’s typology

References

1. Certificate of authorship. № 2012614732. Russian Federation. Method of determining the individual characteristics of hemispheric selection information on the local and global levels / Razumnikova O.M., Suslov R.M.; published 28.05.12. (in Russian)

2. Karazaeva A.U., Razumnikova O.M. Correlation between creativity and hemispheric processes of information selection: significance motor asymmetry // Zhurnal vysshey nervnoy deyatel'nosti. 2012. 62. (3). 279–285. (in Russian)

3. Karazaeva A.U., Razumnikova O.M. Interference processes of information selection during convergent/divergent thinking: role of individual profile of hemispheric asymmetry // Byulleten' Sibirskogo otdeleniya Rossiyskoy akademii meditsinskikh nauk. 2011. 31. (6). 31–38. (in Russian)

4. Ovchinnikov B.V., Pavlov K.V., Vladimirova I.M. Your psychological type. Saint-Petersburg: Andreev i synov'ya, 1994. 238 p. (in Russian)

5. Perfilev A. M., Razumnikova O. M., Stupak V. V. Intelligence and creativity changes induced by pathological growth of space-occupying cerebral lesion // Zhurnal vysshey nervnoy deyatel'nosti. 2013. 63. (2). 218–226. (in Russian)

6. Razumnikova O.M., Volf N.V. Information processing specialization during interference between global and local aspects of visual hierarchical stimuli in men and women // Fiziologiya cheloveka. 2011. 37. (2). 14–19. (in Russian)

7. Jung K. Psychological type. Saint-Petersburg: Azbuka, 1996. 736 p. (in Russian)

8. Aron A.R., Robbins T.W., Poldrack R.A. Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex // Trends Cogn. Sci. 2004. 8. (4). 170–177.

9. Brainerd Ed.C.J., Dempster F.N. Interference and inhibition in cognition. Acad. Press, 1995. 423 p.

10. Chiarello C., Maxfield L. Varieties of interhemispheric inhibition, or how to keep a good hemisphere down // Brain Cogn. 1996. 30. (1). 81–108.

11. Christman S.D. Individual differences in Stroop and local-global processing: A possible role of interhemispheric integration // Brain Cogn. 2001. 45. 97–118.

12. Compton R.J., Weissman D.H. Hemispheric asymmetries in global–local perception: Effects of individual differences in neuroticism // Laterality. 2002. 7. (4). 333–350.

13. Congdon E., Mumford J.A., Cohen J.R. et al. Engagement of large-scale networks is related to individual differences in inhibitory control // Neuroimage. 2010. 53. (2). 653–663.

14. Forstmann B.U., van den Wildenberg W.P., Ridderinkhof K.R. Neural mechanisms, temporal dynamics, and individual differences in interference control // J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2008. 20. (10). 1854–1865.

15. Friedman N.P., Miyake A. The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: a latent-variable analysis // J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2004. 133. (1). 101–135.

16. Godhari V.M., MacDonald A.W. The neural basis of cognitive control: Response selection and inhibition // Brain Cogn. 2009. 71. 72–83.

17. He Z., Cassaday H. J., Bonardi C., Bibby P.A. Do personality traits predict individual differences in excitatory and inhibitory learning? // Front. Psychol. 2013. 4. ID 245.

18. Hellige J.B. Hemispheric asymmetry for visual information processing // Acta Neurobiol. Exp. 1996. 56. 485–497.

19. Navon D. Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception // Cogn. Psychol. 1977. 9. 353–383.

20. Nigg J.T. On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy // Psychol. Bull. 2000. 126. (2). 220–246.

21. Taylor S.F., Kornblum S., Tandon R. Facilitation and interference of selective attention in schizophrenia // J. Рsychiatr. Res. 1996. 30. (4). 251–259.

22. Volberg G., Hübner R. Hemispheric differences for the integration of stimulus levels and their contents: Evidence from bilateral presentations // Percept. Psychophys. 2006. 68. 1274–1258.

23. Warren S.L., Crocker L.D., Spielberg J.M. et al. Cortical organization of inhibition-related functions and modulation by psychopathology // Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013. 7. ID 271.

About Authors (Correspondence):

Yashanina A.A. – postgraduate student of the laboratory of cognitive activity physiology, e-mail: tais4@yandex.ru

Razumnikova O.M. – doctor of biological sciences, chief researcher of the laboratory of cognitive activity physiology, e-mail: razoum@mail.ru

Received: 08/02/2015