|
|
Marinsek, N. L., Gazzaniga, M. S., & Miller, M. B. (2016). Chapter 17 – Split-Brain, Split-Mind. In S. Laureys, O. Gosseries, & G. Tononi (Eds.), The Neurology of Conciousness (Second Edition) (pp. 271–279). San Diego: Academic Press.
Abstract: The corpus callosum anatomically and functionally connects the two cerebral hemispheres. Despite its important role in interhemispheric communication however, severing the corpus callosum produces few--if any--noticeable cognitive or behavioral abnormalities. Incredibly, split-brain patients do not report any drastic changes in their conscious experience even though nearly all interhemispheric communication ceases after surgery. Extensive research has shown that both hemispheres remain conscious following disconnection and the conscious experience of each hemisphere is private and independent of the other. Additionally, the conscious experiences of the hemispheres appear to be qualitatively different, such that the consciousness of the left hemisphere is more enriched than the right. In this chapter, we offer explanations as to why split-brain patients feel unified despite possessing dual conscious experiences and discuss how the divided consciousness of split-brain patients can inform current theories of consciousness.
|
|
|
|
Vallortigara, G., & Andrew, R. J. (1994). Differential involvement of right and left hemisphere in individual recognition in the domestic chick. Behav. Process., 33(1-2), 41–57.
Abstract: Right hemisphere advantage in individual recognition (as shown by differences between response to strangers and companions) is clear in the domestic chick. Chicks using the left eye (and so, thanks to the complete optic decussation, predominantly the right hemisphere) discriminate between stranger and companion. Chicks using the right eye discriminate less clearly or not at all. The ability of left eyed chicks to respond to differences between strangers and companions stimuli is associated with a more general ability to detect and respond to novelty: this difference between left and right eyed chicks also holds for stimuli which are not social partners. The right hemisphere also shows advantage in tasks with a spatial component (topographical learning; response to change in the spatial context of a stimulus) in the chick, as in humans. Similar specialisations of the two hemispheres are also revealed in tests which involve olfactory cues presented by social partners. The special properties of the left hemisphere are less well established in the chick. Evidence reviewed here suggests that it tends to respond to selected properties of a stimulus and to use them to assign it to a category; such assignment then allows an appropriate response. When exposed to an imprinting stimulus (visual or auditory) a chick begins by using right eye or ear (suggesting left hemisphere control), and then shifts to the left eye or ear (suggesting right hemisphere control), as exposure continues. The left hemisphere here is thus involved whilst behaviour is dominated by vigorous response to releasing stimuli presented by an object. Subsequent learning about the full detailed properties of the stimulus, which is crucial for individual recognition, may explain the shift to right hemisphere control after prolonged exposure to the social stimulus. There is a marked sex difference in choice tests: females tend to choose companions in tests where males choose strangers. It is possible that this difference is specifically caused by stronger motivation to sustain social contact in female chicks, for which there is extensive evidence. However, sex differences in response to change in familiar stimuli are also marked in tests which do not involve social partners. Finally, in both sexes there are two periods during development in which there age-dependent shifts in bias to use one or other hemisphere. These periods (days 3-5 and 8-11) coincide with two major changes in the social behaviour of chicks reared by a hen in a normal brood. It is argued that one function of these periods is to bring fully into play the hemisphere most appropriate to the type of response to, and learning about, social partners which is needed at particular points in development. Parallels are discussed between the involvement of lateralised processes in the recognition of social partners in chicks and humans.
|
|
|
|
Versace, E., Morgante, M., Pulina, G., & Vallortigara, G. (2007). Behavioural lateralization in sheep (Ovis aries). Behav. Brain. Res., 184(1), 72–80.
Abstract: This study investigates behavioural lateralization in sheep and lambs of different ages. A flock was tested in a task in which the animals were facing an obstacle and should avoid it on either the right or left side to rejoin flock-mates (adult sheep) or their mothers (lambs). A bias for avoiding the obstacle on the right side was observed, with lambs apparently being more lateralized than sheep. This right bias was tentatively associated with the left-hemifield laterality in familiar faces recognition which has been documented in this species. Differences between adult sheep and lambs were likely to be due to differences in social reinstatement motivation elicited by different stimuli (flock-mates or mothers) at different ages. Preferential use of the forelegs to step on a wood-board and direction of jaw movement during rumination was also tested in adult animals. No population bias nor individual-level lateralization was observed for use of the forelegs. At the same time, however, there was a large number of animals showing individual-level lateralization for the direction of jaw movement during rumination even though there was no population bias. These findings highlight that within the same species individual- and population-level lateralization can be observed in different tasks. Moreover, the results fit the general hypothesis that population-level asymmetries are more likely to occur in tasks that require social coordination among behaviourally asymmetric individuals.
|
|
