Hemispheric lateralisation

Background

The term hemispheric lateralisation refers to the idea that certain

functions are mainly controlled by one hemisphere of the brain

Language

An example of a function that is subject to

hemispheric lateralisation is language
Research has found that the left hemisphere
controls the ability to produce and understand
speech
Brocas area (responsible for producing speech) and
Wernickes area (responsible for understanding
speech) are both found in the left hemisphere
Language is therefore lateralised to the left hemisphere

Split-brain research

Hemispheric lateralisation was investigated in a series of experiments by Sperry

(1968)
Sperry (1968) studied a group of patients who had all undergone the same surgical
procedure known as a commissurotomy
In this procedure, the corpus callosum that connects the two hemispheres is cut in
order to reduce the severity of epileptic seizures
Patients who undergo this form of surgery are referred to as split-brain patients

Procedure

Sperry took advantage of the fact that information from the left visual field (LVF) is
processed in the right hemisphere and information from the right visual field (RVF) is
processed in the left hemisphere

Normally, visual
information that is
received by one
hemisphere is
immediately
transmitted across the
corpus callosum to the
other hemisphere
This means that both
hemispheres are aware
of the visual
information
However
In a split-brain patient, the corpus callosum has been cut
This means that visual information that is received by one hemisphere cannot be
transmitted across the corpus callosum to the other hemisphere
This means that visual information that is received by the right hemisphere is
confined to the right hemisphere and visual information received by the left
hemisphere is confined to the left hemisphere
Sperry conducted a number of different procedures
In a typical procedure, he asked a split-brain patient to fixate on a dot in the centre
of a screen
Information was then presented to either the LVF or the RVF for a very brief period
In some procedures, information was presented to both visual fields at the same time
The patient was then asked to respond
In some procedures, they were asked to respond verbally
In other procedures, they were asked to respond with an action

Findings
Description

Illustration

Describing
what you
see

Recognition
by touch

Recognition by touch:
When a word or image was presented to the
LVF (processed in the right hemisphere),
patients were able to select a matching
object from a set of objects using their left
hand (controlled by the right hemisphere)
They were also able to draw the object using
their left hand (controlled by the right
hemisphere)
However
The patient was still unable to describe what
they had seen

Composite
words

When a word or image was presented to the

RVF (processed in the left hemisphere),
patients could easily describe what they had
seen
However
When a word or image was presented to the
LVF (processed in the right hemisphere),
patients were unable to describe what they
had seen
Patients typically reported that there was
nothing there
This is because language is processed in the
left hemisphere
The inability of the split-brain patients to
describe what was in the LVF is therefore
due to a lack of language centers in the
right hemisphere

When 2 words were presented

simultaneously, one on either side of the
visual field (for example key on the left and
ring on the right) the patient would select
with their left hand a key and say the word
ring

Evaluation (AO3-)

1)
P:

There are concerns that Sperrys research has led to a growing body of poppsychological literature that overemphasises and oversimplifies the functional
dysfunction between the left and right hemispheres.

Although the verbal and non-verbal labels can be applied to summarise the
differences between the two hemispheres
Modern neuro-scientists would argue that the actual distinction is less clear-cut
than this
In a normal brain, the two hemispheres are in constant communication, and many
of the behaviours typically associated with one hemisphere can be effectively
performed by the other hemisphere when the situation required it.

E:

E:

This suggests that differences in hemispheric function may have been overstated

Research into split brain patients can be criticized for lacking control

For example
All 11 of the split brain patients who took part in Sperrys original study had a
history of epileptic seizures.
These seizures may have caused unique changes in the brain that influenced the
findings.
Also
Some of the split-brain patients had experienced more disconnection between the
two hemispheres than others.
Beside the corpus callosum, there are other smaller pathways that connect the
two hemispheres, such as the anterior commissure.
In some cases, this was cut along with the corpus callosum
But in other cases it was left intake, possibly allowing for some communication
between the two hemispheres.

2)
P:
E:

E:

This suggests that Sperrys research was affected by extraneous variables, and
therefore lacked internal validity.

There is evidence that lateralization of function does not stay the same
throughout an individuals lifetime

It has been found that lateralized patterns found in younger individuals tend to
switch to bilateral patterns in healthy older adults.
For example
Szaflarski et al. (2006) found that language became more lateralized to the left
hemisphere with increasing age in children and adolescents.
However, after the age of 25, lateralization decreased with each decade of life.
It is difficult to know why this is the case.
This suggests that lateralisation of function is more complicated than previously
thought

3)
P:

E:

4)
P:

Research into split-brain patients uses very small sample size

For example, Andrews (2001) reported that many studies used as few as 3
participants and some used just 1.
This is because split-brain patients are very unusual, commissurotomies are rarely
carried out nowadays.

E:

E:

This suggests that the findings of split-brain research cannot be generalized to

the wider population.