LATERALIZATION

It refers to the functional specialization of the brain, with some skills, as language, occurring
primarily in the left hemisphere and others, as the perception of visual and spatial
relationships, occurring primarily in the right hemisphere.

Human forebrain appears as two hemispheres which when viewed from top can be assumed
to be mirror images of each other. These two parts are commonly known as right and left
cerebral hemispheres but each hemisphere is specialized in different abilities and tends to
perform different functions. The right hemispheres is more specialized in nonverbal, spatial
and perpetual processing while left hemisphere is specialized in tasks such as music,
mathematics, baseball and cricket, architect and artistic activities. It contrasts with the holistic
theory of the brain that all parts of the brain are involved in the processing of thought and
action.

If a certain area of the brain becomes damaged, the function associated with that area will
also be affected. For instance, it is believed that there are different areas of the brain that are
responsible for controlling language, formulating memories, and making movements. If a
certain area of the brain becomes damaged, the function associated with that area will also be
affected.

Lateralization doesn't mean that one hemisphere is solely responsible for a function, but
rather that there is a tendency for certain functions to be more dominant in one hemisphere.
The two hemispheres are connected through nerve fibres called the corpus callosum, which
facilitate interhemispheric communication: allowing the left and right hemispheres to ‘talk to’
one another.

Human brain lateralization can be defined as the preference of using one side of body more frequently
than the other while performing various day to day tasks. This is dependent on the dominance of one
half of cerebrum over the another. As for example if the dominant hemisphere of the individual is left
then the person tends to be right-handed and vice versa.
Cerebral Hemisphere Specialization/lateralization: Cerebral lateralization refers to the
specialization of each cerebral hemisphere for specific intellectual functions.

Dominance and Functions:

Left Hemisphere:

● Dominant Traits: Commonly dominant for fine motor control and excels in logical,
analytical, sequential, and verbal tasks.
● Skills: Proficient in areas like mathematics, language forms, and philosophy.
● Information Processing: Processes information in a detailed, fragmentary manner.
● Thinking Style: Inclined towards logical and step-by-step thinking.

Left Hemispheric Functioning:

● Specialization: Specialized for language and symbolic processing.

● Abilities: Mediates skills such as speech, writing, arithmetic, and reading.
● Processing Style: Works in a linear-sequential fashion, akin to following a
step-by-step process.

Right Hemisphere:

● Dominant Traits: Excels in nonlanguage skills, particularly spatial perception,

artistic talents, and musical abilities.
● Skills: Proficient in tasks involving holistic and big-picture perspectives.
● Information Processing: Views the world in a holistic manner, processing
information synthetically and simultaneously.
● Thinking Style: Often associated with creative and intuitive thinking.

Right Hemispheric Functioning:

● Specialization: Specialized for visual-spatial stimuli, perceptual-motor skills, and

emotional functioning.
● Abilities: Includes orienting oneself in space, reproducing complex patterns,
recognizing faces, and understanding emotional tones.
 ● Processing Style: Processes information holistically and simultaneously, involving
intuition and pattern recognition.

General Function Left Hemisphere Dominance Right Hemisphere Dominance

Vision Words Faces
Letters Geometric patterns
Emotional expression
Audition Language sounds Non-language sounds
Music
Touch Tactile patterns
Braille
Movement Complex movement Movement in spatial patterns
Ipsilateral movement
Memory Verbal memory Non-verbal memory
Finding meaning in memories Perceptual aspects of memories
Language Speech Emotional content
Reading
Writing
Arithmetic
Spatial ability Mental rotation of shapes
Geometry
Direction
Distance

1) Language dominance. This is the first ability for which cerebral lateralization was
discovered. As already discussed in section 5.2.1, Paul Broca (1864) in his seminal work
mentioned the correlation between left hemisphere and aphasia, suggesting a dominance of
left hemisphere over right hemisphere in language ability.

2) Ipsilateral movement

Opposite of contralateral is ipsilateral. It means on the same side. It is a well-established fact

that our hemispheres are contralaterally connected to our body parts, ie., left hemisphere
controls right part and right hemisphere controls left body part. However, in 1996, Haaland
and Harrington first observed in their FMRI study that complex, cognitive movement
performed by one hand led to usual contralateral activation along with ipsilateral activation of
the hemisphere. Interestingly, this ipsilateral hemispheric activation was found to be greater
in the left hemisphere in comparison to the right hemisphere. It means that any damage to left
hemisphere will affect left-hand movements more m comparison to the effect of the damage
of right hemisphere on right-hand movements.

3) Spatial ability: Levy (1969) found in her study that in the context of spatial abilities, our
right hemisphere has superiority over the left hemisphere. Any damage to right hemisphere
leads to the disorders of spatial perception such as direction, geometry or distance.

4) Emotional ability: Numerous studies have suggested that our right hemisphere is better in
decoding emotional cues than the left hemisphere. In a recent study by Etcoff and his
colleagues (2000), found that people with left hemisphere lesion were more accurate in
reading gesture, facial expression and detecting lie than the normal population. This suggests
that people with aphasia are better at detecting a liar because of their damaged left
bemisphere, thus, they are free to use right hermisphere and make reliable judgments.
Further, it has also been reported that darmage to right hemisphere prevents an individual
from comprehending people's emotional expressions including humor and sarcasm (Beerman
& Chiarello, 1998).

5) Musical ability: Using dichotic listening task, Simura (1964) reported that our right
hemisphere is superior in musical ability: Many other studies on patients with damage in the
right hemisphere, are consistent with the finding of Kimura te, right hemisphere lesion
disrupts the musical ability of such patients

6) Differences in memory: Studies have suggested that both of our hemispheres have
memory abdine However, the types of memory in, which these hermapheres specialize differ
from each other. According to the findings of Kelley et al. (2002 our left hemisphere plays a
major role in verbal memory hemispheres whereas night bonigher e plays preater role
non-verbal memory.
Historical antecedents:

Early in the 19th century, a number of papers were published that began to link complex
psychological functions to specific areas of the brain. Although efforts in the specific
localization of functions to microstructures of the brain have not fared well, broad
organizational principles of the relationship between anatomical features of the brain and
behavior remain the focus of neuropsychology (Dean, 1958a). It is now well-recognized that
an individual’s developmental history and normal differences in both the structure and
chemistry of the brain interact in such a way that highly specific structural localization of
functions is a tenuous pursuit. Thus, although hemispheric differences are acknowledged,
highly specific localization of function does not appear as robust as once portrayed. Parallel
increases in neuropsychological instruments and neuroimaging have shifted the foci of
neuropsychology toward examination of the relationship between behaviors and the structural
functioning of the brain (Dean & Anderson, 1997).

Dax's Discovery (1771-1837):

Marc Dax, a French neurologist, made a groundbreaking observation in the early 19th
century. He discovered a correlation between damage to the left cerebral hemisphere and the
loss of speech production. Despite encountering numerous patients with speech issues, Dax
noted that none had damage restricted to the right hemisphere. Unfortunately, his findings,
presented in two papers in 1836, received little attention during his lifetime, and he passed
away the following year without publishing his discoveries.

Shift in Views on Brain Function (1830s-1860s):

Dax's work initially had minimal impact as most contemporaries believed in the holistic
functioning of the brain without specific attributions to its parts. However, around 25 years
later, in 1861, Paul Broca conducted postmortem examinations on aphasic patients,
individuals with deficits in language production or comprehension due to brain damage.
Initially unaware of Dax's findings, Broca observed a consistent pattern — all patients had
damage to the left hemisphere's inferior prefrontal cortex, later termed Broca's area.

Broca's Aphasia and Cerebral Dominance (1861-1864):

Broca's subsequent examinations on seven more aphasic patients by 1864 revealed a

significant association between language deficits and damage to the left hemisphere. Broca's
area, identified in the inferior prefrontal cortex, became synonymous with language
production. Simultaneously, in the early 1900s, Hugo-Karl Liepmann discovered that apraxia,
a condition impairing voluntary movements, was also predominantly associated with
left-hemisphere damage.

Cerebral Dominance Theory (Early 1900s):

The combined evidence from Broca and Liepmann led to the formulation of the theory of
cerebral dominance. According to this theory, one hemisphere, typically the left, assumes a
dominant role in controlling complex behavioral and cognitive processes, while the other
plays a minor role. This dominance extended to both language and voluntary movement.

Lateralization Concept (Early 20th Century):

Lateralization, as implied by the theory, suggests that certain functional systems are more
connected to one side of the brain than the other. In essence, it is the tendency for the right
and left hemispheres to specialize in distinct ways of working. This concept revolutionized
the understanding of brain organization, marking a major shift in scientific research towards
exploring lateralized functions.
Myers and Sperry's Groundbreaking Experiment

The conception about corpus callosum changed in 1953, when Myers and Sperry conducted a
groundbreaking experiment on cats. For their experiment, they took 4 groups of cats:

1. Cats with severed corpus callosum (control group)

2. Cats with severed optic chiasm (control group)
3. Cats with severed corpus callosum and optic chiasm both (key experimental group)
4. Cats with intact brain or no damage to their brain (control group)

Corpus callosum and optic chiasm are the only two routes by which visual information can
travel from one hemisphere to another hemisphere. The researchers cut completely through
them for their key experimental group. This experiment was conducted in two phases.

In the first phase, all cats were trained for a lever-press pattern discrimination task with a
patch on one eye. Cats of all groups, including key experimental group, learned this task
without any difficulty. This suggests that single hemisphere can also learn any task
independently and as rapidly as two hemispheres can learn together.

In the second phase of the experiment, the patch was switched to cats other eye and were
again given the same discrimination task to perform. It was found that the switching of the
patch to other eye had no effect on the performance of cats except for key experimental
group. In fact, this transferring of the patch had a devastating effect on key experimental
group cats. Their performance remediately dropped down and they had to relearn the task like
a beginner.

This result made Mayer and Sperry conclude that our hemispheres have the capability to act
as separate brains and the role of the corpus callosum is to transfer information across
hemispheres

Based on this experiment, following two theoretical points may be conckuled

1. The role of the corpus callosun is to transmit information from one hemisphere to
another
2. If corpus callosum is completely cut down or damaged, each hemisphère cần work
independently as if they are carrying two separate brains in one skull.
Split-brain in Humans

In order to treat critical cases of epilepsy, Vogel and Bogen started conducting
commissurotomy- the operation of cutting through a band of muscle or nerve fibers
(Merriam-Webster, 2018). These operations proved remarkably effective, as many epilepsy
patients never experienced another major convulsion or epilepsy attack People who have
undergone such surgery are known as spilt-brain people

In order to understand the effect of this commissurotomy on human behaviour, Sperry and
Gazzaniga conducted experiments on spilt-brain patients.

The basic premise of their methodology was similar to Sperry's previous experiment on
laboratory cats: limiting information to one hernisphere only (Gazzaniga, 2005). Split-brain
patients were asked to fix their gaze at the center of a display screen. A stimulus was
presented on either left or right side of the screen just for 0.1 second. This short duration of
stimuli presentation was enough for perceiving it but not enough for patients to make any eye
movement. Further, some fine tactual and motor activities were given to perform by each
hand under a ledge This procedure made sure that information about stimuli would not
transmit to ipsilateral hemisphere.

DETAILED

Sperry and Gazzaniga (1967) were the first to investigate hemispheric lateralisation with
the use of split-brain patients.

Background: Split-brain patients are individuals who have undergone a surgical procedure
where the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres, is cut. This procedure,
which separates the two hemispheres, was used as a treatment for severe epilepsy.

Aim: The aim of their research was to examine the extent to which the two hemispheres
are specialised for certain functions.

Method: An image/word is projected to the patient’s left visual field (which is processed
by the right hemisphere) or the right visual field (which is processed by the left
hemisphere). When information is presented to one hemisphere in a split-brain patient, the
information is not transferred to the other hemisphere (as the corpus callosum is cut).
Sperry and Gazzaniga conducted many different experiments, including describe what you
see tasks, tactile tests, and drawing tasks.

● In the describe what you see task, a picture was presented to either the left or right
visual field and the participant had to simply describe what they saw.
● In the tactile test, an object was placed in the patient’s left or right hand and they
had to either describe what they felt, or select a similar object from a series of
alternate objects.
● Finally, in the drawing task, participants were presented with a picture in either
their left or right visual field, and they had to simply draw what they saw.

Findings:

Describe What You See

● Pictured presented to the right visual field (processed by left hemisphere) The
patient could describe what they saw, demonstrating the superiority of the left
hemisphere when it comes to language production.
● Picture presented to the left visual field (processed by right hemisphere) The
patient could not describe what was shown and often reported that there was
nothing present.

Tactile Tests

● Objects placed in the right hand (processed by the left hemisphere) The patient
could describe verbally what they felt. Or they could identify the test object
presented in the right hand (left hemisphere), by selecting a similar appropriate
object, from a series of alternate objects.
● Objects placed in the left hand (processed by the right hemisphere) The patient
could not describe what they felt and could only make wild guesses. However, the
left hand could identify a test object presented in the left hand (right hemisphere),
by selecting a similar appropriate object, from a series of alternate objects.

Drawing Tasks

● Pictured presented to the right visual field (processed by left hemisphere)

While the right-hand would attempt to draw a picture, the picture was never as clear
 as the left hand, again demonstrating the superiority of the right hemisphere for
visual motor tasks.
● Picture presented to the left visual field (processed by right hemisphere) The
left-hand (controlled by the right hemisphere) would consistently draw clearer and
better pictures than the righthand (even though all the participants were
right-handed). This demonstrates the superiority of the right hemisphere when it
comes to visual motor tasks

Conclusion: The findings of Sperry and Gazzaniga’s research highlights a number of key
differences between the two hemispheres. Firstly, the left hemisphere is dominant in terms
of speech and language. Secondly, the right hemisphere is dominant in terms of
visual-motor tasks.

Their study concluded two findings

● Just like laboratory anunals, split-brain patients also have two independent
hemispheres having their own consciousness, capabilities, and memories
● Contrary to the hemispheres of laboratory animals, hemispheres of spilt brain patients
are not equal in their abilities

Now, we will discuss those evidence on the basis of which the researchers concluded the
above two results ie, hemispheres of split-brain patients can work independently and have
unequal abilities.

1. In their study, Gazzaniga and Sperry presented either visual or tactual stimuli to either
side of their hemispheres. When a picture of a spoon was presented on the right visual
field or the spoon was placed in the patients' right hand, the left hemisphere gets
activated and he or she does the following things:
● the patient simply tells the name of the object i.e., spoon, or
● picks out the correct object kept under the ledge with the right hand

These two steps taken by patients indicate that their left hemisphere had received and stored
the information. In the second phase of the study, a picture of the spoon was presented on the
lest visual field or the spoon itself was placed in the patients' left hand. This activates the
right hemisphere, however, the responses given by patients were completely different.

● patients claimed that nothing appeared on the screen, or

● patients could not pick out the correct object kept under the ledge from their left hand
● patients claimed their unawareness about any object that has been placed in their left
hand

2. Cross-cueing/cuing: According to Gazzaniga and Sperry (1967), hemispheres of

spilt-brain patients were capable of communicating with each other through non-
neural routes or external routes. They termed it "cross-cucing/cuing" Pinto et al.,
(2017) have defined the process of cross-cucing as "one hemisphere informing the
other hemisphere with behavioral ticks, such as touching the left hand with the right
hand" In their study, Gazzaniga and his colleagues presented red or green colour in
the left visual field of the spilt brain patients and asked them to name it after seeing it.
They found that initially, their participants were not able to perform better than chance
level (ie, 50% correct response). However, gradually their performance improved
dramatically. Initially, they believed that information is travelling between two
hemispheres through some neural pathway. However, later they found that some
external route such as head shakes or frowning inform left hemispheres of an
incorrect answer.

3. Doing two things simultaneously Gazzaniga (2005) in their studies found that each
hemisphere of the split-brain patients can work independently Interestingly their
efficiency in certain visual tasks was found to be better than healthy participants
(Luck et al. 1989).

4. The Z lens For split-brain patients, visual stimuli requiring more than 0.1 second to
perceive could not be studied using the conventional method for restricting Visual
input to one hemisphere. To eliminate this barrier Zadel in 1975 developed the Z lens.
It is a contact lens that is opaque on left side or right side. The 7 lens limits the visual
imput to one hemisphere of the split-brain patients while they scan complex visual
material for instance, pages of a book Since the lens moves with the eye, it permits
visual input to enter only one hemisphere. irrespective of eye movement.
Multitasking-

As the two hemispheres of a split-brain patient are capable of independent functioning, they
are also able to do two different things at the same time. Each hemisphere of split-brain
patients appears to be able to maintain an independent focus of attention (Gazzaniga, 2005).
Split-brain patients can search for, and identify, a visual target item in an array of similar
items more quickly than healthy controls can (Luck et al., 1989)—presumably because the
two split hemispheres are conducting two independent searches. For example, in one test, two
different visual stimuli appeared simultaneously on the test screen ( pencil in the left visual
field and orange in the right visual field). The split-brain patient was asked to simultaneously
reach into two bags(one with each hand) and grasp the object that was on the screen and tell
what was in the hands. The left hemisphere made the patient reply, “Two oranges.” When the
hands were withdrawn, there was an orange in the right hand and a pencil in the left. The two
hemispheres of the split-brain patient had learned two different things at exactly the same
time.

In another study, with the same visual objects. when the split-brain patient was asked to pick
up the presented object from the objects on a table. As the right hand reached out to pick up
the orange under the direction of the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere saw what was
happening and thought an error was being made as it saw a pencil. The left hand shot out,
grabbed the right hand away from the orange, and redirected it to the pencil. When the right
hemisphere of a split-brain patient perceives a wrong answer given by the left hemisphere,
the left hand (under the control of the right hemisphere) will move to help the left hemisphere
find the correct answer, which is called the 'helpinghand phenomenon

Independence of Split Hemispheres: Current Perspective

Most of the discussions of split-brain patients tend to focus on cases in which there seems to
be a complete separation of left-hemisphere and right-hemisphere function, but complete
hemispheric independence is not an inevitable consequence of split-brain surgery. In most
split-brain patients, it is possible to demonstrate some communication of information between
hemispheres, depending on the particular surgery, the time since surgery, the particular
information, and the method of testing. For example, feelings of emotion appear to be readily
passed between the hemispheres of most split-brain patients. This is easily demonstrated by
presenting emotionally loaded images to the right hemisphere and asking patients to respond
verbally to the images. Their verbal left hemisphere often responds with the appropriate
emotion, even when the left hemisphere is unaware of the image (Sperry, Zaidel, & Zaidel,
1979)

Task difficulty

Another factor that has been shown to contribute substantially to the hemispheric
independence of split-brain patients is task difficulty (Weissman & Banich, 2000). As tasks
become more difficult, they are more likely to involve both hemispheres of split-brain
patients. It appears that simple tasks are best processed in one hemisphere, the hemisphere
specialized for the specific activity, but complex tasks require the cognitive power of both
hemispheres.

Evaluation of Split-Brain Research:

​ Animal Studies and Generalization to Humans:

● Strengths: Rogers et al. (2004) demonstrated enhanced multitasking in
chickens with brain lateralization, supporting the idea of increased neural
processing capacity.
● Limitations: Generalizing findings to humans is challenging due to
differences in brain complexity and functioning. The scarcity of split-brain
studies in humans limits broad conclusions.
​ Flaws in Split-Brain Research:
● Concerns: Current split-brain studies are scarce, with few participants, often
focusing on individuals with specific physical disorders necessitating the
procedure.
● Problematic Generalization: Results may only apply to individuals with
underlying disorders, posing challenges in extending findings to the broader
population.
​ Age-Related Changes in Lateralization:
● Evidence: Szaflarki et al. (2006) found age-related shifts in lateralization,
raising questions about the stability of hemispheric dominance over time.
● Implications: The dynamic nature of lateralization challenges assumptions of
a fixed dominant hemisphere, prompting exploration into how and why
lateralization changes with age.
​
​ Flexibility of Language Localization:
 ● Discovery: Turk et al. (2002) observed language development in the right
hemisphere after left hemisphere damage, indicating potential adaptability in
language processing.
● Implications: The brain's capacity to adapt challenges the notion of fixed
lateralization, suggesting a more flexible neural organization following
damage.

Overall Implications

The evaluation underscores the need for caution in generalizing findings from animal studies
to humans. The scarcity of recent split-brain research limits comprehensive understanding,
and the dynamic nature of lateralization challenges assumptions of fixed dominance. The
adaptability of the brain, particularly in language processing, invites further exploration into
the complexities of neural organization.

Tests and techniques to measure cerebral lateralization

● Unilateral Lesions: In general, a unilateral lesion of a particular structure would be

one that was present in that structure in one hemisphere only. Unilateral cerebral
lesions are a way to measure cerebral lateralization. One of the cerebral hemispheres
is temporarily damaged to study the functions of the other cerebral hemisphere.
● Split-Brain: The term split brain refers to a neurological condition when the main
commissures connecting the two cerebral hemispheres have been surgically
disconnected. It was initially described in the classic work of Roger Sperry and
Ronald Myers in the 1950s-1960s.
There is an effect of commissurotomy on typical brain functioning. After sectioning,
the two brain hemispheres are independent: each receives sensory input from all
sensory systems, and each can control the body’s muscles, but the two hemispheres
can no longer communicate. Because functions in these separate cortexes, or split
brains, are thus isolated, sensory information can be presented to one hemisphere, and
its function can be studied without the other hemisphere having access to the
information. More detailed testing has shown that some transfer of information is
possible through subcortical pathways but the basic dramatic findings of the surgical
split-brain remain well established.
● Sodium Amytal Test: The sodium amytal test, also known as the Wada Test, was
developed by Jun Wada and Theodore Rasmussen in 1960 as an invasive method to
assess language lateralization in patients undergoing neurosurgery. This test is crucial
for avoiding damage to speech zones during brain surgery.
In this procedure, sodium amytal is injected into the carotid artery, anesthetizing the
hemisphere on the injected side. This allows surgeons to determine if that hemisphere
is dominant for speech. The patient is then asked to recite familiar series and name
common objects. After the injection is administered to the other side, the test is
repeated.
For instance, injecting the left carotid artery anesthetizes the left hemisphere, resulting
in an inability to speak, move the right arm, or see in the right visual field. Although
the right hemisphere is awake, it is typically non-dominant for speech, so the patient
can't speak or report on the experience. Conversely, injecting the right side induces
sensory and motor symptoms on the left but usually doesn't disrupt speech unless the
patient's right hemisphere is dominant for speech. This test helps surgeons safeguard
language functions during brain surgery.

● Dichotic Listening Test:

The dichotic listening test, developed from Kimura's experiments on neurological
patients in the early 1960s, is a non-invasive method applicable to healthy individuals.
In this test, three pairs of spoken digits are simultaneously presented through
earphones, one digit to each ear. Participants are then asked to report all the digits
heard.
Kimura's findings revealed that most people tend to report slightly more digits from
the right ear, suggesting left-hemisphere specialization for language. Conversely,
patients identified with right hemisphere language specialization through the sodium
amytal test performed better with the left ear than the right in the dichotic listening
test.
Kimura proposed that although sounds from each ear reach both hemispheres, the
contralateral connections (connections to the opposite side of the brain) are stronger
and take precedence when two different sounds compete simultaneously for access to
the same cortical auditory centers. This highlights the lateralization of language
processing in the brain.
● Functional Brain Imaging: Functional neuroimaging refers to the use of the
non-invasive (fMRI) and invasive (PET) brain imaging methods to localize neural
activity in the human brain related to the engagement of specific mental functions.
Lateralization of function has also been studied using functional brain-imaging
techniques. While a volunteer engages in some activity, such as reading, the activity
of the brain is monitored by positron emission tomography (PET) or functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). On language tests, functional brain-imaging
techniques typically reveal far greater activity in the left hemisphere than in the right
hemisphere.