BRAIN AND LANGUAGE 22, 206-220 (1984)

Profiles of Right Hemisphere Language and Speech following

Brain Bisection
MICHAEL S. GAZZANIGA. CHARLOTTE S. SMYLIE AND KATHLEEN BAYNES

Cornell University Medical College

AND

WILLIAM HIRST AND CAROL MCCLEARY

Princeton University

A variety of language tasks were administered to two patients who had undergone
staged callosal section in an effort to control otherwise intractable epilepsy. Right
hemisphere lexical capacity varied and preliminary results suggest that the case
displaying greater semantic power also possessed some syntactic competence.
This same case (V.P.) was also capable of expressive language from the right
hemisphere. This rare capacity allowed for fresh observations on the dynamic
interactions of conscious control that occur in this kind of patient.

INTRODUCTION
Right hemisphere language has been extensively studied in a small
group of patients who have undergone commissurotomy for the control
of intractable seizures (Gazzaniga & Sperry, 1967; Gazzaniga, 1970; Gaz-
zaniga, Volpe, Smylie, Wilson, & LeDoux, 1979; Gazzaniga, 1983; Zaidel,
1977; Sidtis, Volpe, Wilson, Rayport, & Gazzaniga, 1981). These studies
have shown among other things that the right hemisphere may possess
a rich semantic system but is poor at noun-verb distinctions and proves
unable to carry out simple printed commands.
In this paper, we further explore the nature of right hemisphere language
in two of these patients. The first patient, J.W., has a developed right
hemisphere language system, but cannot access speech. The other patient
in this study, V.P., has demonstrated the ability to access speech mech-
This research was aided by USPHS Grant NS 15051-03,the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,
and the McKnight Foundation. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Mark
Rayport of the Medical College of Ohio, the late Dr. Donald Wilson of the Dartmouth
Medical School, and also Dr. Alex Reeves of the Dartmouth Medical School.

206
0093-934X/84 $3.00
Copyright 0 1984 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
 RIGHT HEMISPHERE LANGUAGE 207

anisms from the right hemisphere. She is one of two from the national
split-brain population that possess this capacity, the other being case
P.S. P.S. was not included in the present set of experiments because he
has developed the capacity to communicate between the two hemispheres
by means of a phonetic code (Gazzaniga, Sidtis, Volpe, Smylie, Holtzman,
& Wilson, 1982). This newly acquired ability makes it difficult to control
the flow of information to each hemisphere.
In the present study, we examine three aspects of the right hemisphere
language systems of J.W. and V.P.: the sophistication of their lexicons,
their appreciation of syntactic constraints, and their capacity to generate
coherent speech. As will become clear, these three aspects are correlated;
a strong capacity in one area is accompanied by a capacity in the other
whereas an incapacity in one area tends to be accompanied by weakness
in the others.
CASE HISTORIES AND METHODS
J.W. is an alert 29-year-old right-handed male with a history of staring spells since grade
school. After his first grand mal at age 18, seizure frequency increased and became intractable.
Midline section of the corpus callosum was performed in two stages by Dr. Donald Wilson
of the Dartmouth Medical School. The posterior half of the corpus callosum including the
splenium was sectioned first, with the remaining anterior portion sectioned in a second
operation 10 weeks later.
V.P., a right-handed 29-year-old female, experienced her first of recurrent seizures at 9
years of age. Anticonvulsant drugs controlled the seizures until 1979 when she began
experiencing grand mal, petit mat, and myoclonic episodes while on multiple anticonvulsants.
She underwent partial anterior callosal section in early April 1979, followed by complete
resection of her callosum in a second operation 7 weeks later by Dr. Mark Rayport at the
Medical College of Ohio.
All tasks described below involved lateralized presentation of visual stimuli. The subjects
were seated 1 m from a screen on which visual pictorial stimuli were rear projected and
presented to the left or right of a central fixation point. The pictorial stimuli were displayed
by means of a standard slide projector fitted with an electronic shutter and were presented
at least 1” to the right or left of fixation for 150 msec, which is well below the time
necessary to make an eye movement. Words were displayed on the 15-in. monitor of an
Apple II computer. The subject was asked to fixate on a point in the midline on the screen
and eye movements were carefully monitored either by the experimenter or through a
video system. Prior to each test the subject was provided with instructions and examples
of the type of judgment required.

Observations
Lexicon Assessment
Vocabulary
The language comprehension skills of both patients have been assessed
(Sidtis et al., 1981). We now extend these observations by reporting on
a psychometric evaluation of the ability of J.W.‘s right hemisphere to
comprehend nouns from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test presented
in both auditory and visual modalities. In addition the nature and extent
208 GAZZANIGA ET AL.

of the semantic capacities of both subjects were reexamined in an effort

to further characterize possible differences that might exist between the
semantic systems of each hemisphere. In a preliminary study possible
differences in semantic competence were noted.
J.W. was administered Form A of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test using a lateralized tachistoscopic presentation. The right hemisphere
was tested before the left and the visual presentation was made first.
The vocabulary words were presented to either the left or right visual
half field with the standard pictorial choices being presented in free view.
In the auditory presentations, the word was spoken by the examiner and
the four possible pictorial definitions were sequentially presented on each
trial twice to each half field. On the second presentation the subject’s
manual response indicated which of the four was correct. There are a
total of 150 items on the test. A basal score is established by eight
consecutive correct responses where the starting point of the word list
is arbitrary. The test was started on the 80th item which proved sufficient
to establish the basal level. The ceiling is defined by six errors in eight
consecutive responses and the raw score is in the number of total errors
subtracted from the ceiling.
Results. Both hemispheres of J.W. were able to perform the task. The
left hemisphere (L Hem) consistently scored higher indicating its lexicon
is more complete (L Hem: visual = 133, auditory = 131; R Hem: visual
= 105, auditory = 109). There was no difference in performance between
the auditory and visual modalities. There may be a significant difference
between the left and right hemisphere performance, but the standarized
norms only go up to the age of 18. Each hemisphere performed at this
level.
Semantic Categorization.
In this set of experiments, the semantic organizations of J.W. and V.P.
were examined in an effort to extend the work of Sidtis et al. (1981). V.P.
was run on only one of three tasks since she quickly displayed the same
robust lexical capacity reported earlier. J.W., on the other hand, was
examined on two more follow-up tests since his lexical knowledge appeared
less sophisticated. These additional experimental tasks were presented
with the aim of probing with increasing sensitivity the underlying com-
petence of J.W.‘s right hemisphere lexicon. The tasks investigate whether
the observable competence of J.W.‘s right hemispheric lexicon will change
with the demands of the experimental task and, more specifically, determine
whether under certain conditions, the performance of the right hemisphere
can rival performance of the left hemisphere.
Interest focused on four relations: superordinate, same class, attribute,
and function. The specific words and relations were the same in all three
tasks; the tasks were administered over a 3-month period. In each of
 RIGHT HEMISPHERE LANGUAGE 209

the tasks, a probe word was seen and then one or two test items. In
Task 1, J.W. and V.P. indicated which of two lateralized test items was
more associated with the probe. One test item was related to the probe
in one of the four ways mentioned. In Task 2, only given to J.W., the
patient indicated whether a single lateralized probe and a single lateralized
test item were associated. Task 3 was similar to Task 2 with one exception.
In Task 2, the probe and the test items were not presented simultaneously
whereas in Task 3, J.W. could look at both the probe and test item at
the same time. Task 3, which placed the easiest demands on the subject,
was administered after Task 1 and before Task 2. Details are as follows.
Tusk 1. There were four probe words: ant, eye, bed, and bunny. Each
probe was paired with four strong associates, one for each of the four
relations, and four foils that were unrelated to the probe. The associates
and foils were paired to form four “tests” for each probe. For example,
the four “tests” for the probe word ant were:
(1) superordinate: associate-insect; foil-fish.
(2) same class: associate-bee; foil-dog.
(3) attribute: associate-small; foil-fur.
(4) function: associate-crawl: foil-bark.
The associates were selected from norms gathered by McCleary (1980).
Both the probes and test items were high frequency words (Kucera &
Francis, 1967) with an average length of 5.4 letters (range: 3-7 letters).
The experimenter began each trial by asking J.W. and V.P. to fixate
on the point in the center of the CRT display. When J.W. and V.P. were
ready, they pushed a ready bar and a probe was flashed on the screen
for 150 msec. The probe appeared randomly in either the left or right
visual field. Five hundred milliseconds after the probe was displayed,
the test appeared, half of the time in the same visual field, half of the
time in the contralateral field. The test items were positioned one above
the other. Half of the time the associate was on the top; the other half
on the bottom. J.W. and V.P. had to choose which of the two test items
was “more associated” with the probe. J.W. and V.P. indicated their
choice by pushing one of two buttons, also arranged one above the other.
Tusk 2. The four probes in this task were single words. Half were the
associates of Task 1; the other half were the foils of Task 1. For example,
the probe “ant” was paired separately with “insect” as the test item or
“fish” as the test item. As in Task 1, there were four relations between
probe and associate: superordinate, same class, attribute, and function.
The probe appeared in either the right or left visual field for 150 msec.
The test item then appeared for 150 msec in either the same or the
opposite visual field. J.W. was asked to indicate whether the test item
was “associated” with the probe. J.W. pushed a button marked “Yes”
when he thought that the probe and test items were associated. He pushed
a button marked “No” when he thought that they were unrelated. For
210 GAZZANIGA ET AL.

example, for the probe “ant”, he should respond “Yes” when “insect”
is the test item, “No” when “fish” is the test item.
Task 3. The probe, printed in large block letters on an 8-in. cardboard
sheet, was placed in front of the subject and remained there during each
block of trials. Each block consisted of eight trials. In each trial, a word
was flashed half of the time to the right visual field, half of the time to
the left. Four of the words in a block were associates of the probe,
capturing the same four relations explored in Tasks 1 and 2. The other
four were the foils from Tasks 1 and 2. The task of the subject was to
indicate when the “test word” was associated with the probe. They
indicated their response by pushing either a button labeled “Yes” or a
button labeled “No.” The four probes and 32 test items were the same
as in Task 2.
Results. Inasmuch as the nature of the relation did not affect one
nature of the response, only summary data is presented. As Table 1
indicates, semantic information was not transferred between hemispheres.
In half of the trials in Task 1 the probe and test items were in contralateral
fields. Performance in these instances was at chance level (by binomial,
p < .05) for both J.W. and V.P. Task 2 was only run on J.W. The scores
were again at chance. Hence, further analysis will concentrate on the
within-field conditions, summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
V.P.‘s performance was excellent for both the left and the right hem-
isphere. The performance of J.W.‘s right hemisphere, on the other hand,
was worse than the performance of his left hemisphere for Tasks 1 and
2 (by sign test, p < .05), but not Task 3. Performance of the right
hemisphere was at chance levels for Task 1 @ < .05). Performance of
the right hemisphere on Tasks 2 and 3 was above chance (p < .05).
Comparisons among the different tasks indicate that J.W.‘s right hemisphere
made the correct response less often in Task 1 than in Tasks 2 and 3
(by sign test, p < .05), and less often in Task 2 than in Task 3 (p <
.05).

TABLE 1
PERCENTAGE OF CORRECTLY DETECTED
ASSXIATIONS IN THE BETWEEN-HEMISPHERE
CONDITIONS

LVF-RVF RVF-LVF

Task 1
(Case J.W.
and V.P.) 55 43
Task 2
(Case J.W.) 62 23
 RIGHT HEMISPHERE LANGUAGE 211

TABLE 2
CASES J.W. AND V.P: PERCENTAGE OF CORRECTLY
DETECTED ASSOCIATIONS IN THE WITHIN-
HEMISPHERE CONDITIONS

RVF LVF

J.W. 90 43
V.P. 93 79

Syntactic Constraints

Disambiguation
Ambiguous sentences such as (1) were presented by Chomsky (1965)
as an example of structural ambiguity.
(1) Flying planes can be dangerous.
(2) The flying planes can be dangerous.
(3) Flying the planes can be dangerous.
The functor “the” can be used to disambiguate the two readings of
sentence (1) as demonstrated by sentences (2) and (3). The difference in
the grammatical category assigned the word “flying” is dictated by the
functor. In sentence (2) “flying” is a verb form used as an adjective. In
sentence (3) the same word is used as a noun. The syntactic restrictions
of the functor determine the structure assigned the phrase.
Twenty-five pairs of noun phrases similar in form to the initial noun
phrases of sentences (2) and (3) were constructed. Two sets of three
verb phrases were then constructed for each noun phrase pair, as in
Table 4.
All of the verb phrases combined with the noun phrase to make well-
formed sentences. In each set, one of the verb phrases formed semantically
anomalous sentences when combined with either of the two noun phrases.
In this case, verb phrase (c) which will be called the “semantically
related” verb phrase forms an anomalous sentence with either noun
phrase (i) or (ii). The other two verb phrases were constructed so that
each of the verb phrases produced a semantically nonsensical sentence

TABLE 3
CASE J.W.: PERCENTAGE OF CORRECTLY DETECTED
ASSOCIATIONS IN THE WITHIN-HEMISPHERE
CONDITIONS

RVF LVF

Task 2 92 68
Task 3 94 93
212 GAZZANIGA ET AL.

TABLE 4
EXAMPLE OF EXPERIMENTAL TRIAL

Noun phrase Verb phrase

a) from potatoes wastes

(i) Peeling the skin vitamins
b) was a result of the
(ii) The peeling skin disease
c) slipped on the banana

when combined with one of the noun phrases, but not with the other.
Verb phrase (a) makes a semantically acceptable sentence with (i) but
not with (ii). Conversely, verb phrase (b) makes a semantically acceptable
sentence with (ii) but not with (i). For noun phrase (i) we will call (a)
the “correct ending” and (b) the “syntactic reciprocal;” for noun phrase
(ii), we will call (a) the “syntactic reciprocal” and (b) the “correct
ending.” The average length of the words in the initial noun phrases
was 4.9 letters with a range of 3 to 9 letters. One set of verb phrases
was presented to the right hemisphere; the other set to the left.
The task was presented in two sessions. Each hemisphere received
one order of the initial noun phrases in one session and the second order
in a second session at least 1 month later. The three verb phrases were
typed on 4 x 6-in. cards which were presented to the subject to be read
aloud before each trial and remained exposed throughout the trial. He
or she then fixated on a point in the center of a CRT screen. The trial
was initiated by pressing a ready bar. The three words in the initial
phrase were flashed one at a time 3” to the right or left of the fixation
point. A single digit was presented simultaneously in the contralateral
field to prevent a shift in visual attention. The word and digit remained
on the screen for 150 msec and were immediately replaced by the next
word and digit. The subject was then asked to select the best ending for
the viewed phrase from the choices on the 4 x 6-in. card. Finally the
subject had to select the highest of the three numbers that had appeared
on the screen from a set of five numbers. The simultaneous digit task
was included because the sequential presentation of three words to one
hemifield resulted in a total exposure time far in excess of the time needed
for the eyes to move to the stimulated hemifield. Although both subjects
are experienced and successful fixators, the additional task was provided
to help them maintain fixation.
Results. J.W. and V.P. could have based their responses on their
appreciation of semantic constraints, their appreciation of syntactic con-
straints, or their appreciation of both forms of constraints. If they based
their response solely on semantic constraints, then they should rarely
choose the semantic distractor, since it forms a semantically anomalous
sentence no matter what syntactic role the words in the initial noun
 RIGHT HEMISPHERE LANGUAGE 213

phrase serve. However, they should fail to discriminate between the

“correct choice” and the “syntactic distractor.” If they do not appreciate
the syntactic function of “the,” then the initial noun phrases are ambiguous
and either verb phrase is a legitimate ending.
Alternatively, if J.W. and V.P. appreciate the syntactic role of “the,”
then they should choose the “correct ending” over the “syntactic re-
ciprocal.” If they appreciate both the syntactic and semantic constraints,
then they should choose the “correct ending” over the “syntactic re-
ciprocal” and the “semantically related ending.”
In what follows, the data is analyzed in two different ways. First, we
analyzed whether J. W. and V.P. were choosing among the three verb
phrases at random. We used a binomial test, with chance at .33. Table
5 contains the relevant results. Of course, it is possible that J.W. and
V.P. eliminated the “semantically related ending” and then chose among
the remaining two verb phrases at random. To test this possibility, we
eliminated from the calculations those trials in which a subject selected
a “semantic distractor” (this rarely occurred, as will be shown), recalculated
the frequency with which the “correct choices” and “syntactic distracters”
were selected, and then applied the binomial test, with chance at .5.
Table 6 contains the relevant results.
J.W.‘s data presented the classic pattern of the cognitively discrete

TABLE 5
USE OF THE FLJNCTOR
“THE” TO DISAMBIGUATE
PHRASES
___
Syntactic Semantically
Correct Ending reciprocal related
(%) m’c) (7%)

J.W.”
Left hemisphere 88* 8* 4*
Right hemisphere 42 42 16*
V.P. I”
Left hemisphere 50* 34 16*
Right hemisphere 44 32 24
V.P. IIh
Left hemisphere 56* 28 16*
Right hemisphere 48* 26 26

’ Percentages of each sentence choice selected in 50 trials with each hemisphere (49 for
J.W.‘s left hemisphere due to experimenter error).
’ Percentages of each distractor chosen during tachistoscopic presentation for those
stimuli on which V.P. performed correctly in a subsequent free field presentation (42 trials
for her right hemisphere and 43 trials for her left hemisphere).
* p < .05; proportion response type chosen differs from chance c.33).
214 GAZZANIGA ET AL.

TABLE 6

Correct Syntactic
ending reciprocal
6) (%I

J.W.”
Left hemisphere (47) 92* 8*
Right hemisphere (42) 50 50
V.P. I
Left hemisphere (42) 60 40
Right hemisphere (38) 58 42
V.P. II”
Left hemisphere (36) 67* 33*
Right hemisphere (31) 65* 35*

n Percentage of each ending type chosen not in-

cluding semantically related ending choices.
* p < .05; proportion response type chosen differs
from chance (.50).

capacities of the commissurotomy patient. Both hemispheres discarded

the meaning-related distracters at greater than chance levels. With his
left hemisphere, J.W. was also able to use the information carried by
the functor to assign correct structure to the initial phrase. In contrast,
J.W.‘s right hemisphere is unable to discriminate between the two syntactic
choices at all. The left hemisphere can use the syntactic information
conveyed by “the” in a normal fashion to structure the tachistoscopically
presented phrase. The right hemisphere is able to recognize those sentences
which violate selection restrictions, but is unable to use the information
carried by the functor to structure the initial phrase. Without the dis-
ambiguating information carried by “the,” the right hemisphere finds
either verb phrase equally appropriate.
For subject V.P., the pattern of response was less differentiated between
hemispheres. Her left hemisphere did not choose among the verb phrases
at random, inasmuch as her choice of the “semantic distractor” was
significantly below chance level. However, her left hemisphere had difficulty
determining the “correct choice” over the “syntactic distractor.” It
chose the “correct choice” more often than one would expect if its
responses were random. This is true whether chance is at .33 (see Table
5) or .5 (see Table 6). However, its performance is quite depressed in
comparison to J.W.‘s. There are many possible explanations for this
poor performance: educational level, sensitivity to written language, and
so on. Whatever the reason, we decided to run an additional control to
better understand V.P.‘s linguistic abilities.
 RIGHT HEMISPHERE LANGUAGE 215

All of the stimuli were readministered in a free field presentation with

no time limits to eliminate stimuli that were confusing for V.P. With
complete freedom from time constraints in a free field presentation, she
was still unable to correctly complete 15 of the test sentences. These
sentences were dropped from her data and the scores reanalyzed. These
results are presented as V.P. II. The percentage of correct syntactic
choices increased for both hemispheres, bringing the right hemisphere’s
performance above chance in this analysis. Both hemispheres were able
to make the syntactic distinction.
Both subjects were able to perform the control task and correctly
selected the highest number presented tachistoscopically from a choice of
five (binomial, p < .OS) with either hemisphere indicating that fixation
was being maintained throughout the presentation.

Verbal Productive Capacity.

Case J.W. possesses no ability to generate speech from the right hem-
isphere. Starting approximately 12 months after full callosal surgery,
however, V.P.‘s right hemisphere showed a steady increase in the ability
to read words and describe pictures. A series of routine tests were
performed to assess her right hemisphere’s productive capacity 30 months
after surgery.
Visual Words
Forty simple nouns and verbs were randomly presented unilaterally
to both left and right of fixation followed by 36 trials of two words being
presented bilaterally, one to each visual field. V.P. was asked to name
the words.
Results. Both the left and right hemispheres could accurately name
the unilaterally presented words with scores of 40/40 and 38/40 respec-
tively. The performance dropped slightly when presented bilaterally with
the left hemisphere naming 33/36 and the right hemisphere naming 32/
36. The drop in performance under conditions of bilateral stimulation
may reflect the limited resource capacity noted in this patient under this
kind of test condition (Holtzman & Gazzaniga, 1982). Still, these data
confirmed the impression that each hemisphere was equally capable of
naming visually presented words of varying word class and word frequency.
Split Words
Seventeen two-syllable words were presented to V.P. in such a way
that the first syllable was projected to the left visual field and the second
syllable to the right visual field. Of the 17 words presented, 10 could
not be pronounced correctly if the two halves were pronounced separately
216 GAZZANIGA ET AL.

(ex: NOT ICE). The other seven words could be correctly pronounced
if each hemisphere separately spoke each syllable. V.P. was instructed
to name the word(s) presented to her. The 10 “unpronounceable” words
were also presented to J.W.
Results. The results are seen in Table 7. Under both test conditions,
the general response for V.P. was to first pronounce the syllable seen
in the left visual field, followed by the syllable presented to the right
visual field. Words such as “NOT ICE” were thus pronounced “NOT”
AND “ICE,” instead of “NOTICE.” Words such as “CAR PET” on
the other hand sound normal when spoken by V.P., since no blend was
required between the two syllables pronounced from each hemisphere.
In V.P. there were also trials where each hemisphere attempted to
complete the word on the basis of the syllable viewed. Because the
patient was “test-smart” and realized the desired response was a two
syllable word, each side used its syllable as the root of a longer word.
J.W. pronounced only right visual field stimuli. When questioned, he
reported he saw nothing else.
Complex Scenes
Thirteen complex scenes were presented unilaterally to V.P.‘s left and
right visual fields for a total of 26 trials. The scenes were simple line
drawings that did not lend themselves to one word descriptions (see Fig.
TABLE I
SPOKEN RESPONSE TO DISYLLABIC WORDS PRESENTED ON THE MIDLINE

Response

Stimulus V.P. J.W.

A
1. BAT HER “MOTHER” “HER”
2. CAB LED “CAB, ” “LED” “LED”
3. LEG END “LEG, ” “END” “END”
4. LOT ION “LOT, ” “ION” “ION”
5. SEA LED “SEA, ” “LED” “LED”
6. RAT HER “BROTHER,” “RABBIT” “HER”
7. NOT ICE “NOTHING,” “ICE” “ICE”
8. WIN TRY “MINIMUM, ” “COUNTRY” “TRY”
9. SAT IRE “ENGINE, ” “SATURDAY”
10. DIG ITS “DIGITS” “ITS”
B
11. WARDEN “MARINE, ” “GARDEN”
12. TAR GET “TAR, ” “GET”
13. PAR ADE “PARTY, ” “PARADE”
14. IMP ALE “IMPERIAL,” “FINAL”
15. DON KEY “DON, ” “KEY”
16. AS SORT “AS, ” “ASCORT, ” “DESSERT”
17. GAR NET “MAGNET, ” “GADGET”
 RIGHT HEMISPHERE LANGUAGE 217

1). V.P. was asked to describe the pictures in as much detail as possible.
All spoken responses were recorded and subsequently transcribed. The
first five lexical items describing each stimulus were then noted and
compared for accuracy to the stimulus presented. Each hemisphere viewed
half of the complex scenes first.
Results. A typical response pattern of the left and the right hemispheres
is depicted in Fig. 1. Both the left and the right hemispheres could
describe the main feature of each stimulus. When the left hemisphere
descriptions were compared to the actual stimuli and also to the descriptions

1 1 /=- 1

a
I b

‘I don’t know if he’8 an athlete or not, l An athlete-8 basketball guy?...had a

but he IO (I man running ow hurdler. He’s UnlfOrm. Iii8 back was facing me, and he
got gym rhortr on, and I don’t know for IWO was on a” angle. He looked llke he had been

If he had . shirt on. I think he dld...and walking, and he was oonna take another stop

tw-mla *hoer. ~OQ~JW’B l ho.8.’ because one foot was like more out.’

FIG. 1. Schematic representation of experiment requesting subject to describe complex

scenes such as this. (a) The left hemisphere responds accurately. fb) The response. while
initially accurate, becomes falsely embellished as the left hemisphere intrudes and starts
to construct a theory about the nature of the picture it in fact did not see.
218 GAZZANIGA ET AL.

obtained from the right hemisphere, certain facts emerged. The left hem-
isphere usually made a brief, accurate description of the picture. Stimuli
presented to the right hemisphere, on the other hand, were initially
characterized accurately, but were then embellished or modified (Fig.
2). When the first five characterizing utterances are compared, the pictures
flashed to the right hemisphere result in significantly more intrusions.
The interpretation of this common occurrence is that the dominant left
hemisphere hears the initial description and then begins to intervene with
its own conjectures about what the picture must have been.
DISCUSSION
The foregoing experiments demonstrate that both the left and the right
hemisphere have a rich lexicon. Each half-brain was able to define a
wide range of words. This is consistent with other results (Sidtis et al.,
1981) that showed that superordinate, subordinate, functional, and other
semantic relations were accessible for words visually lateralized to each
hemisphere in these two patients. At the same time the level of competence
is different in the two cases with V.P. showing a more efficient and/or
complete lexicon than J.W. These findings are also consistent with recent
observations by Kutas and Hillyard (1984) that semantic incongruities
evoke an N-400 event related potential in V.P.‘s right hemisphere, while
this effect is absent in J.W. Once again, the variance in the upper limits
of right hemisphere language is more prominent than the consistencies
(Gazzaniga, 1983).
Although Sidtis et al. (1981) clearly established that the right hemispheric
lexicon of J.W. and V.P. is sophisticated enough to access semantic
relations among words, they found that the performance of the right
hemisphere was worse than that of the left hemisphere, which might suggest

100’
so
50
; 70
e
5 so
0
E 50
g 40
p” 30
20
10

1 2 3 4 5

Serial Response Utterances

FIG. 2. Descriptions of complex scenes. The first remarks of each half-brain were
correct. As V.P. embellished on the descriptions stimuli to the left hemisphere continued
to elicit accurate descriptions while stimuli to the right elicited inaccuracies and presumably
reflects intrusions from the left half-brain.
 RIGHTHEMISPHERE LANGUAGE 219

that the right hemispheric lexicon may not be as rich or large as the left
hemispheric lexicon. It is possible, however, that the problems that J.W.
and V.P. encountered may reflect in part the demands of the semantic
judgement task. The lexicons of these right hemispheres of J.W. and
V.P. may be equal to the one on the left but the content may be more
difficult to access. Indeed, the present experiments on semantic organization
indicate that the nature of the task does affect the degree to which J.W.
manifests an understanding of semantic relations in his right hemisphere.
In the third semantic judgement task in this study, where the task demands
were extremely simple, the right hemisphere of J.W. was as accurate in
its semantic judgements as his left hemisphere.
It remains for further tests to more fully ascertain possible differences
in the semantic systems of the two half brains. Preliminary follow-up
studies carried out on J.W. suggest that the impressive lexical skill may
have a quite limited utility. In all tests run to date on all split-brain
patients, semantic quality is assessed through tests of associative rec-
ognition. Thus, knowing an “apple” is a “fruit” in the associative response
paradigms just described does not mean the semantic system governing
such a choice also knows “fruit” is a superordinate category to “apple.”
In our first tests on this kind of issue, J.W.‘s right hemisphere was unable
to classify a list of words as to whether or not they were or were not
categorical words (M.S. Gazzaniga & C.S. Smylie. unpublished obser-
vations, 1983).
In tests on syntactic skills, V.P.‘s right hemisphere, but not J.W.‘s,
was able to appreciate syntactic constraints. The right hemisphere of
V.P. could use functors like “the” to interpret potentially ambiguous
sentences. These findings suggest that the right hemisphere is capable
of a dimension of language not commonly encountered. While previous
studies have indicated that right hemisphere language may be limited to
a lexicon, the present work suggests that in cases of rich right hemisphere
language, not only is the lexicon fairly developed, but some control of
syntax can surface as well. At the same time, this complex language
system is not a reflection of sophisticated cognitive capacity. Gazzaniga
and Smylie (1984) have shown that the right hemisphere of V.P. cannot
add, make simple inferences, or solve simple spatial problems. The
emerging syntax (and also speech) in V.P. appear to be reflections of
her emerging linguistic, not cognitive, competence.
Finally, Case V.P. clearly evidenced expressive language in the right
half-brain whereas J.W. did not. She is easily able to name visual stimuli
of all kinds quick-flashed into her right hemisphere. Her right hemisphere
can apprehend the content of complex line drawings and accurately
describe the main features of the drawings. In short, V.P. demonstrated
naming skills similar to those of P.S., the other split-brain patient with
access to a right hemisphere speech mechanism (Gazzaniga et al. 1979).
220 GAZZANIGA ET AL.

This remarkable skill finds the two half-brains of V.P. interacting and
communicating through speech. While the left brain remains dominant
and does most of the talking, the right brain is now capable of interjecting
its own statements. Experimentally this can be clearly seen when a
complex line drawing is exclusively flashed to the right half-brain. The
right hemisphere initially states with great accuracy the major feature of
the picture. At that precise moment, the left brain not only hears the
description but more importantly is cognizant of the fact that a behavior
has been emitted that needs further explanation. From that point on,
both hemispheres appear to be vying for control for completing the
remaining aspects of the description. The left usually wins even though
it is engaged in concocting a story about the actual nature of the stimulus
(see Gazzaniga, 1983).

REFERENCES
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gazzaniga, M. S., & Sperry, R. W. 1%7. Language after section of the cerebral commissures.
Brain, 90, 131-138.
Gazzaniga, M. S., LeDoux, J. E. & Wilson, D. H. 1977. Language, praxis, and the right
hemisphere: Clues to some mechanisms of consciousness. Neurology, 27, 1144-I 147.
Gazzaniga, M. S., Volpe, B. T., Smylie, C. S., Wilson, D. H., & LeDoux, J. E. 1979.
Plasticity in speech organization following commissurotomy. Brain, 102, 805415.
Gazzaniga, M. S., Sidtis, J. J., Volpe, B. T., Smylie, C. S., Holtzman, J. D., & Wilson,
D. H. 1982. Evidence of para-callosal verbal transfer after callosal section: A possible
consequence of bilateral language organization. Brain, 105, 53-63.
Gazzaniga, M. S., & Smylie, C. S. 1984. Dissociation of language and cognition: A psy-
chological profile of two disconnected right hemispheres. Brain, 107, 145-153.
Gazzaniga, M. S. 1970. The bisected brain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gazzaniga, M. S. 1983. Right hemisphere language following commissurotomy: A twenty
year perspective. American Psychologist, 38, 525-537.
Holtzman, J. D., & Gazzaniga, M. S. 1982. Dual task interactions due to limits in processing
resources. Science, 218, 1325-1327.
Kucera, H., & Frances, W. W. 1967. Computational analysis of present day American
English. Providence, RI: Brown University.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. 1984. Event related potentials and the study of conscious
experience. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive neuroscience. New
York: Plenum Publishing Corp. Pp. 387-409.
McCleary, C. 1980. Associated categories norm. Unpublished working paper. Princeton
University.
Sidtis, J. J., Volpe, B. T., Wilson, D. H., Rayport, M., & Gazzaniga, M. S. 1981.Variability
in right hemisphere language function after callosal section: Evidence for a continuum
of generative capacity. The Journal of Neuroscience, 1 (31, 323-331.
Zaidel, E. 1977. Unilateral auditory language comprehension on the token test following
cerebral commissurotomy and hemispherectomy. Neuropsychologia, 15, l-18.