Hemispheric modulations of the attentional networks Alfredo Spagna a,b , Diana Martella c , Luis J. Fuentes d , Andrea Marotta a , Maria Casagrande a,⇑ a Laboratorio di Psicofisiologia e Neuropsicologia Sperimentale, Department of Psychology, Sapienza, University of Rome, Italy b Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, Department of Psychology, Queens College, The City University of New York, Flushing, NY, USA c Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Universidad Autonoma de Chile, Chile d Facultad de Psicología, Departamiento de Psicología Basíca, Universidad de Murcia, Spain article info Article history: Received 15 October 2015 Revised 10 May 2016 Accepted 5 July 2016 Keywords: Attention Visual field asymmetries Right hemisphere asymmetry Alerting Orienting Executive control abstract Although several recent studies investigated the hemispheric contributions to the attentional networks using the Attention Network Test (ANT), the role of the cerebral hemispheres in modulating the interac- tion among them remains unclear. In this study, two lateralized versions of this test (LANT) were used to investigate theal effects on the attentional networks under different conflict conditions. One version, the LANTI-A, presented arrows as target and flankers, while the other version, the LANTI-F, had fruits as target and flankers. Data collected from forty-seven participants confirmed well-known results on the efficiency and interactions among the attentional networks. Further, a left visual field advantage was found when a target occurred in an unattended location (e.g. invalid trials), only with the LANTI-F, but not with LANTI-A. The present study adds more evidence to the hemispheric asymmetry of the orienting of attention, and further reveals patterns of interactions between the attentional networks and the visual fields across different conflicting conditions, underlying the dynamic control of attention in complex environments. Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc. 1. Introduction Every day, the human brain is constantly beset by incoming information from both sides of our visual fields, and attentional mechanisms are implemented to influence which information gains access to conscious awareness (Fan et al., 2009; Mackie, Van Dam, & Fan, 2013). Although humans are able to allocate attentional resources efficiently to both the left and right visual fields (hereafter LVF and RVF, respectively), the earliest evidence for the right hemisphere (RH) dominance for attention was found more than 30 years ago (Heilman & Van Den Abell, 1980; Kinsbourne, 1987; Mesulam, 1999). For example, spatial neglect is a neuropsychological syndrome characterized by a failure to per- ceive and respond to stimuli presented on the contra-lesional side of space, and this syndrome has been shown to be more severe and long-lasting following a right-sided brain lesion compared to a left- sided brain lesion (Bartolomeo, 2007; De Renzi, Gentilini, Faglioni, & Barbieri, 1989; Heilman & Van Den Abell, 1980; Riddoch & Humphreys, 1983). Further evidence of a RH dominance for visu- ospatial attention comes from studies on lateralized visuospatial attention bias in non-clinical samples, which has revealed a small but systematic leftward bias, known as pseudoneglect, both in the line bisection task (i.e., marking the perceived center of a horizon- tal line) and the landmark task (i.e., judging whether a vertical line is to the left or right of the center of a horizontal line) (Bowers & Heilman, 1980; Brooks, Della Sala, & Darling, 2014). A wealth of studies investigating the RH hemisphere specializa- tion for attentional processing have used the cued response time paradigm (Posner, 1980), in which a visual target is preceded by the presentation of a cue that may (valid condition) or may not (invalid condition) indicate the exact position where the target will be presented. Typically, the cost of an invalid cue is reduced for targets appearing in the LVF (controlled by the RH) compared to targets presented in the RVF (controlled by the LH) (Evert, McGlinchey-Berroth, Verfaellie, & Milberg, 2003; Michael & Ojéda, 2005; Okada, Sato, & Toichi, 2006; Shenal, Hinze, & Heilman, 2012), although controversy exists (Chokron, Brickman, Wei, & Buchsbaum, 2000; Sosa, Teder-Sälejärvi, & McCourt, 2010). Support for the RH specialization for attentional processing also comes from several imaging studies (Corbetta & Shulman, 2011). In a pivotal PET study, Corbetta, Miezin, Shulman, and Petersen (1993) showed that changes in regional blood flow in right frontal and parietal regions were associated with movement of attention towards both visual fields, while the left parietal region was involved in shifts of attention towards the RVF only. Nowadays, many consider the RH to play a key role in the selective http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2016.07.002 0278-2626/Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc. ⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Sapienza, University of Rome, Via dei Marsi, 78, Rome, Italy. E-mail address: maria.casagrande@uniroma1.it (M. Casagrande). Brain and Cognition 108 (2016) 73–80 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Brain and Cognition journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/b&c