Lateralization of brain function

A longitudinal fissure separates the human brain into two distinct cerebral hemispheres, connected by the corpus callosum. The sides resemble each other and each hemisphere's structure is generally mirrored by the other side. Yet despite the strong anatomical similarities, the functions of each cortical hemisphere are managed differently. For example, the lateral sulcus generally is longer in the left hemisphere than in the right hemisphere. Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about one side or the other having characteristic labels such as "logical" or "creative". These labels need to be treated carefully; although a lateral dominance is measurable, these characteristics are in fact existent in both sides,[1] and experimental evidence provides little support for correlating the structural differences between the sides with functional differences.[2] The extent of any modularity, or specialization of brain function by area, remains under investigation. If a specific region of the brain or even an entire hemisphere[3] is either injured or destroyed, its functions can sometimes be assumed by a neighboring region, even in the opposite hemisphere, depending upon the area damaged and the patient's age. When injury interferes with pathways from one area to another, alternative (indirect) connections may come to exist to communicate information with detached areas, despite the inefficiencies. While functions are lateralized, these are only a tendency. They trend across the many individuals may also vary significantly as to how any specific function is implemented. The areas of exploration of this causal or effectual difference of a particular brain function includes its gross anatomy, dendritic structure, and neurotransmitter distribution. The structural and chemical variance of a particular, brain function, between the two hemispheres of one brain or between the same hemisphere of two different brains is still being studied. Short of having undergone a hemispherectomy (removal of a cerebral hemisphere), no one is a "left-brain only" or "right-brain only" person.[4] Brain function lateralization is evident in the phenomena of right- or left-handedness and of right or left ear preference, but a person's preferred hand is not a clear indication of the location of brain function. Although 95% of right-handed people have left-hemisphere dominance for language, only 18.8% of left-handed people have right-hemisphere dominance for language function. Additionally, 19.8% of the left-handed have bilateral language functions.[5] Even within various language functions (e.g., semantics, syntax, prosody), degree (and even hemisphere) of dominance may differ

Left vs. right

Linear reasoning[7] and language functions such as grammar and vocabulary[8] often are lateralized to the left hemisphere of the brain. Dyscalculia is a neurological syndrome associated with damage to the left temporo-parietal junction.[9] This syndrome is associated with poor numeric manipulation, poor mental arithmetic skill, and the inability to either understand or apply mathematical concepts.[10]

In contrast, prosodic language functions, such as intonation and accentuation, often are lateralized to the right hemisphere of the brain.[11][12] The processing of visual and audiological stimuli, spatial manipulation, facial perception, and artistic ability seem to be functions of the right hemisphere. Depression is linked with a hyperactive right hemisphere, with evidence of selective involvement in "processing negative emotions, pessimistic thoughts and unconstructive thinking styles", as well as vigilance, arousal and self-reflection, and a relatively hypoactive left hemisphere, "specifically involved in processing pleasurable experiences" and "relatively more involved in decision-making processes".[13] Additionally, "left hemisphere lesions result in an omissive response bias or error pattern whereas right hemisphere lesions result in a commissive response bias or error pattern." [14] The delusional misidentification syndromes reduplicative paramnesia and Capgras delusion are also often the result of right hemisphere lesions.[15][16] There is evidence[17] that the right hemisphere is more involved in processing novel situations, while the left hemisphere is most involved when routine or well rehearsed processing is called for. Other integrative functions, including arithmetic,[18][19] binaural sound localization, and emotions (lateralization of emotion), seem more bilaterally controlled.
Left hemisphere functions Right hemisphere functions numerical computation (exact calculation, numerical comparison, estimation) [18][19] left hemisphere only: direct fact retrieval numerical computation (approximate calculation, [18][19] numerical comparison, estimation) language: grammar/vocabulary, literal[20] language: intonation/accentuation, prosody, pragmatic, contextual[20]

History
Speech and language Broca

One of the first indications of brain function lateralization resulted from the research of French physician Pierre Paul Broca, in 1861. His research involved the male patient nicknamed "Tan", who suffered a speech deficit (aphasia); "tan" was one of the few words he could articulate, hence his nickname. In Tan's autopsy, Broca determined he had a syphilitic lesion in the left cerebral hemisphere. This left frontal lobe brain area (Broca's area) is an important speech production region. The motor aspects of speech production deficits caused by damage to Brocas area are known as Broca's aphasia. In clinical assessment of this aphasia, it is noted that the patient cannot clearly articulate the language being employed.
Wernicke

German physician Karl Wernicke continued in the vein of Broca's research by studying language deficits unlike Broca aphasias. Wernicke noted that not every deficit was in speech production; some were linguistic. He found that damage to the left posterior, superior temporal gyrus (Wernicke's area) caused language comprehension deficits rather than speech production deficits, a syndrome known as Wernicke's aphasia.

Advance in imaging technique

These seminal works on hemispheric specialization were done on patients and/or postmortem brains, raising questions about the potential impact of pathology on the research findings. New methods permit the in vivo comparison of the hemispheres in healthy subjects. Particularly, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) are important because of their high spatial resolution and ability to image subcortical brain structures.
Handedness and language

Broca's Area and Wernickes Area are linked by a white matter fiber tract, the arcuate fasciculus[dubious discuss]. This axonal tract allows the neurons in the two areas to work together in creating vocal language. In more than 95% of right-handed men, and more than 90% of righthanded women, language and speech are subserved by the brain's left hemisphere. In left-handed people, the incidence of left-hemisphere language dominance has been reported as 73%[21] and 61%.[5] There are ways of determining hemispheric dominance in a person. The Wada Test introduces an anesthetic to one hemisphere of the brain via one of the two carotid arteries. Once the hemisphere is anesthetized, a neuropsychological examination is effected to determine dominance for language production, language comprehension, verbal memory, and visual memory functions. Less invasive (sometimes costlier) techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging and Transcranial magnetic stimulation, also are used to determine hemispheric dominance; usage remains controversial for being experimental.
Movement and sensation

In the 1940s, American born, Montreal based neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield and his neurologist colleague Herbert Jasper developed a technique of brain mapping to help reduce side effects caused by surgery to treat epilepsy. They stimulated motor and somatosensory cortices of the brain with small electrical currents to activate discrete brain regions. They found that stimulation of one hemisphere's motor cortex produces muscle contraction on the opposite side of the body. Furthermore, the functional map of the motor and sensory cortices is fairly consistent from person to person; Penfield and Jasper's famous pictures of the motor and sensory homunculi were the result.
Split-brain patients

Research by Michael Gazzaniga and Roger Wolcott Sperry in the 1960s on split-brain patients led to an even greater understanding of functional laterality. Split-brain patients are patients who have undergone corpus callosotomy (usually as a treatment for severe epilepsy), a severing of a large part of the corpus callosum. The corpus callosum connects the two hemispheres of the brain and allows them to communicate. When these connections are cut, the two halves of the brain have a reduced capacity to communicate with each other. This led to many interesting behavioral phenomena that allowed Gazzaniga and Sperry to study the contributions of each hemisphere to various cognitive and perceptual processes. One of their main findings was that

the right hemisphere was capable of rudimentary language processing, but often has no lexical or grammatical abilities.[22] Eran Zaidel, however, also studied such patients and found some evidence for the right hemisphere having at least some syntactic ability. For example: Patients with brain damage from surgery, stroke or infection sometimes develop a syndrome in which they can feel sensations in their hand, but they don't feel responsible for nor able to control its movements. In patients with a corpus callostomy, alien hand syndrome most often manifests as uncontrolled but purposeful movements of the nondominant hand.[citation needed]

Exaggeration
Terence Hines states that the research on brain lateralization is valid as a research program, though commercial promoters have applied it to promote subjects and products far outside the implications of the research.[23] For example, the implications of the research have no bearing on psychological interventions such as EMDR and neurolinguistic programming,[24] brain training equipment, or management training.[25]

Nonhuman brain lateralization

Specialization of the two hemispheres is general in vertebrates including fish, frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals with the left hemisphere being specialized to categorize information and control everyday, routine behavior, with the right hemisphere responsible for responses to novel events and behavior in emergencies including the expression of intense emotions. An example of a routine left hemisphere behavior is feeding behavior whereas as a right hemisphere is escape from predators and attacks from conspecifics

UNDERSTANDING HOW THE BRAIN WORKS

It's important to understand the complexity of the human brain. The human brain weighs only three pounds but is estimated to have about 100 billion cells. It is hard to get a handle on a number that large (or connections that small). Let's try to get an understanding of this complexity by comparing it with something humans have created--the entire phone system for the planet. If we took all the phones in the world and all the wires (there are over four billion people on the planet), the number of connections and the trillions of messages per day would NOT equal the complexity or activity of a single human brain. Now let's take a "small problem"--break every phone in Michigan and cut every wire in the state. How long would it take for the entire state (about 15 million people) to get phone service back? A week, a month, or several years? If you guessed several years, you are now beginning to see the complexity of recovering from a head injury. In the example I used, Michigan residents would be without phone service while the rest of the world had phone service that worked fine. This is also true with people who have a head injury. Some parts of the brain will work fine while others are in need of repair or are slowly being reconnected.

AN ELECTRICAL AND CHEMICAL MACHINE Let's start looking at the building blocks of the brain. As previously stated, the brain consists of about 100 billion cells. Most of these cells are called neurons. A neuron is basically an on/off switch just like the one you use to control the lights in your home. It is either in a resting state (off) or it is shooting an electrical impulse down a wire (on). It has a cell body, a long little wire (the "wire" is called an axon), and at the very end it has a little part that shoots out a chemical. This chemical goes across a gap (synapse) where it triggers another neuron to send a message. There are a lot of these neurons sending messages down a wire (axon). By the way, each of these billions of axons is generating a small amount of electrical charge; this total power has been estimated to equal a 60 watt bulb. Doctors have learned that measuring this electrical activity can tell how the brain is working. A device that measures electrical activity in the brain is called an EEG (electroencephalograph). Each of the billions of neurons "spit out" chemicals that trigger other neurons. Different neurons use different types of chemicals. These chemicals are called "transmitters" and are given names like epinephrine, norepinephrine, or dopamine. Pretty simple, right? Well, no. Even in the simplified model that I'm presenting, it gets more complex. IS THE BRAIN ONE BIG COMPUTER?

Is the brain like a big phone system (because it has a lot of connections) or is it one big computer with ON or OFF states (like the zeros and ones in a computer)? Neither of the above is correct. Let's look at the brain using a different model. Let's look at the brain as an orchestra. In an orchestra, you have different musical sections. There is a percussion section, a string section, a woodwind section, and so on. Each has its own job to do and must work closely with the other sections. When playing music, each section waits for the conductor. The conductor raises a baton and all the members of the orchestra begin playing at the same time playing on the same note. If the drum section hasn't been practicing, they don't play as well as the rest of the orchestra. The overall sound of the music seems "off" or plays poorly at certain times. This is a better model of how the brain works. We used to think of the brain as a big computer, but it's really like millions of little computers all working together. GETTING INFORMATION IN AND OUT OF THE BRAIN How does information come into the brain? A lot of information comes in through the spinal cord at the base of the brain. Think of a spinal cord as a thick phone cable with thousands of phone lines. If you cut that spinal cord, you won't be able to move or feel anything in your body. Information goes OUT from the brain to make body parts (arms and legs) do their job. There is also a great deal of INCOMING information (hot, cold, pain, joint sensation, etc.). Vision and hearing do not go through the spinal cord but go directly into the brain. Thats why people can be completely paralyzed (unable to move their arms and legs) but still see and hear with no problems. Information enters from the spinal cord and comes up the middle of the brain. It branches out like a tree and goes to the surface of the brain. The surface of the brain is gray due to the color of the cell bodies (that's why it's called the gray matter). The wires or axons have a coating on them that's colored white (called white matter). TWO BRAINS--LEFT AND RIGHT HEMISPHERE We have two eyes, two hands, and two legs, so why not two brains? The brain is divided in half, a right and left hemisphere. The right hemisphere does a different job than the left. The right hemisphere deals more with visual activities and plays a role in putting things together. For example, it takes visual information, puts it together, and says "I recognize that--that's a chair," or "that's a car" or "that's a house." It organizes or groups information together. The left hemisphere tends to be the more analytical part; it analyzes information collected by the right. It takes information from the right hemisphere and applies language to it. The right hemisphere "sees" a house, but the left hemisphere says, "Oh yeah, I know whose house that is--it's Uncle Bob's house." So what happens if one side of the brain is injured? People who have an injury to the right side of the brain "don't put things together" and fail to process important information. As a result, they often develop a "denial syndrome" and say "there's nothing wrong with me." For example, I treated a person with an injury to the right side of the brain--specifically, the back part of the right brain that deals with visual information--and he lost half of his vision. Because the right

side of the brain was injured, it failed to "collect" information, so the brain did not realize that something was missing. Essentially, this person was blind on one side but did not know it. What was scary was that this person had driven his car to my office. After seeing the results of the tests that I gave him, I asked, "Do you have a lot of dents on the left side of your car?" He was amazed that I magically knew this without seeing his car. Unfortunately, I had to ask him not to drive until his problems got better. But you can see how the right side puts things together. The left side of the brain deals more with language and helps to analyze information given to the brain. If you injure the left side of the brain, you're aware that things aren't working (the right hemisphere is doing its job) but are unable to solve complex problems or do a complex activity. People with left hemisphere injuries tend to be more depressed, have more organizational problems, and have problems using language. VISION--HOW WE SEE THINGS Information from our eyes goes to areas at the very back of the brain. We've all seen cartoons where the rabbit gets hit on the head and the rabbit sees stars. This can actually happen in human beings (trust me, not a good thing to do at home!). If you take a hard enough blow to the back of the head, this brain area bangs against back of your skull. This stimulates it and you can see stars and flashing lights. Remember those two hemispheres? Each hemisphere processes half the visual information. Visual information that we see on the left gets processed by the right hemisphere. Information on the right gets processed by the left hemisphere. Remember, wires that bring in information to the brain are "crossed"--visual information from the left goes to the right brain. MOVEMENT The area of the brain that controls movement is in a very narrow strip that goes from near the top of the head right down along where your ear is located. It's called the motor strip. If I injure that area, I'll have problems controlling half of my body. If I have a stroke in the left hemisphere of my brain, the right side of the body will stop working. If I have an injury to my right hemisphere in this area, the left side of my body stops working (remember, we have two brains). This is why one half of the face may droop when a person has had a stroke.

HEARING AND LANGUAGE In the general population, 95 percent of people are right-handed, which means that the left hemisphere is the dominant hemisphere. (For you left-handers, the right hemisphere is dominant.) With right-handed people, the ability to understand and express language is in this

left temporal lobe. If I were to take a metal probe, and charge it with just a bit of electricity, and put it on the "primary" area of my left temporal lobe, I might say "hey, I hear a tone." If I move this probe to a more complex area of the temporal lobe, I might hear a word being said. If I move the electrical probe to an even more complex area, I might hear the voice of somebody I recognize; "I hear Uncle Bob's voice." We have simple areas of the temporal lobe that deal with basic sounds and other areas of the temporal lobe that look at more complex hearing information. The right temporal lobe also deals with hearing. However, its job is to process musical information or help in the identification of noises. If this area is damaged, we might not be able to appreciate music or be able to sing. Because we tend to think and express in terms of language, the left temporal lobe is more critical for day-to-day functioning. The vision areas and the hearing areas of the brain have a boundary area where they interact. This is the area of the brain that does reading. We take the visual images and convert them into sounds. So if you injure this area (or it doesn't develop when you are very young), you get something called dyslexia. People who have dyslexia have problems that may include seeing letters backwards or have problems understanding what written words mean. SKIN SENSATION If something lands on my left hand, this information will be transmitted to the right side of my brain. It goes to the area of the brain next to the area that deals with movement. The tactile area of the brain deals with physical sensation. Movement and feeling are closely related, so it makes sense that they are next to each other in the brain. Because movement and tactile areas are located close to each other, it is not uncommon for people with a brain injuries to lose both movement and feeling in parts of their body. Remember--tactile information from the left side of the body goes to the right brain, just like movement and vision. FRONTAL LOBES--Planning, Organizing, Controlling The biggest and most advanced part of the brain is the frontal lobe. (It's called the frontal lobe because it's in the front part of brain.) One job of the frontal lobe is planning. You have probably heard of "frontal lobotomies." At the turn of the century, this surgery was done on people who were very violent or who were in a psychiatric hospital because they were very agitated. Doctors used surgery to damage this area of the brain. Following this surgery, people became very passive and less violent. At first, scientists saw this as a great thing. Neurosurgery could stop behavioral problems such as violence. The problem was that the patients stopped doing a lot of other things. They didn't take care of themselves and they stopped many activities of daily living. They basically sat there. In head injury, individuals with frontal lobe impairment seem to lack motivation and have difficulty doing any task that requires multiple steps (e.g., fixing a car or planning a meal). They have problems with planning.

The frontal lobe is also involved in organizing. For a lot of activities, we need to do step A, then step B, then step C. We have to do things in order. That's what the frontal lobes help us do. When the frontal lobe is injured, there is a breakdown in the ability to sequence and organize. A common example is people who cook and leave out a step in the sequence. They forget to add an important ingredient or they don't turn the stove off. I've met a lot of patients who've burned or melted a lot of pans. Additionally, the frontal lobes also play a very important role in controlling emotions. Deep in the middle of the brain are sections that control emotions. They're very primitive emotions that deal with hunger, aggression, and sexual drive. These areas send messages to other parts of the brain to DO SOMETHING. If you're mad, hit something or someone. If you're hungry, grab something and eat it. The frontal lobes "manage" emotions. In general, the frontal lobe has a NO or STOP function. If your emotions tell you to punch your boss, it's the frontal lobes that say "STOP or you are going to lose your job." People have often said to me "a little thing will set me off and I'm really mad." The frontal lobes failed to stop or turn off the emotional system. On the other hand, we have talked about how the frontal lobes plan activities. The frontal lobes may fail to plan for some types of emotion. For example, sexual interest involves some level of planning or preparation. Without this planning, there is a lack of sexual interest. A lack of planning can also affect the expression of anger. I've had some family members say "You know, the head injury actually improved him, he's not such a hot-head anymore." If you listen very carefully, you're also going to hear "he's not as motivated anymore." Remember, the frontal lobe plans activities as well as controls emotions.

Differences Between Hemisphere

Left

and

Right

One way of looking at learning styles is to determine your hemispheric dominance. Are you more right brained or left brained? We know that the cerebral cortex is the part of the brain that houses rational functions. It is divided into two hemispheres connected by a thick band of nerve fibers (the corpus callosum) which sends messages back and forth between the hemispheres. And while brain research confirms that both sides of the brain are involved in nearly every human activity, we do know that the left side of the brain is the seat of language and processes in a logical and sequential order. The right side is more visual and processes intuitively, holistically, and randomly. Most people seem to have a dominant side. A key word is that our dominance is a preference, not an absolute. When learning is new, difficult, or stressful we PREFER to learn in a certain way. It seems that our brain goes on autopilot to the preferred side. And while nothing is entirely isolated on one side of the brain or the other, the characteristics commonly attributed to each side of the brain serve as an appropriate guide for ways of learning things more efficiently and ways of reinforcing learning. Just as it was more important for our purposes to determine that memory is stored in many parts of the brain rather than learn the exact lobe for each part, likewise it is not so much that we are biologically right brain or left brain dominant, but that we are more comfortable with the learning strategies characteristics of one over the other. What you are doing is lengthening your list of strategies for learning how to learn and trying to determine what works best for you. You can and must use and develop both sides of the brain. But because the seat of our preferences probably has more neural connections, learning may occur faster. This section will look a t some differences between left and right brain preferences. Be on the look out for practical strategies that work for you. Let's begin with a few basics. First, no one is totally left-brained or totally rightbrained. Just as you have a dominant hand, dominant eye, and even a dominant foot, you probably have a dominant side of the brain. Second, you can and must develop both sides of your brain.

Left Brain, Right Brain, Whole Brain?

An examination into the theory of brain laterilization, learning styles and the implications for education.
The idea that the left and right hemispheres exhibit different patterns of thought has caught the public attention and have inspired several educational theories, notably "Eight ways of knowing" by David Lazear , and numerous other self-help books. However theses theories have also been heavily criticized, and sometimes cast as pop-psychological myths . Here we will investigate current understanding of left-right brain functioning; look at some of the psychological and educational models which result; an examine some of the educational implications. We will also examine for of the critiques of the theory and a couple of speculative ideas inspired by techniques in statistics and computer science. We start with a brief look at the brain. Basic brain biology

A simplified model of the human brain consists of many parts:

Brain stem, hind brain, mid brain & cerebellum - the most ancient parts, connected to the spine, controls movement, breathing and heartbeats. Limbic system - consisting of many specialist organs including the Hypothalamus, hippocampus developed in mammals. Some memory functions and generation of emotional responses. Cerebral cortex - the distinguishing feature of human brains

The cortex is divided into two hemispheres, left and right connected by a thick layer of cells called the corpus callosum. Most other parts of the brain are also divided laterally.

Each hemisphere of the cortex can further be divided into four lobes:

Occipital - visual processing Parietal - movement, orientation, calculation, recognition Temporal - sound and speech processing, aspects of memory Frontal - thinking, conceptualisation, planning.

The left hand eye is connected to the right hand occipital lobe and vice-versa. The right hand side of the brain also controls the left hand side of the body. The outer surface of the cerebral cortex, commonly called the grey matter, is made up of the cell bodies many million of neurons, which are the main processing unit of the brain. Below the surface is the white matter, this chiefly consists of dendrites and axons which connect neurons to each other. A simplified model of the processing of a neuron is that it receives inputs through its dendrites and depending upon the level of inputs it will fire a signal along its axion. Towards the end of the axion its splits and connects to dendrites of other neurons causing them to fire. While each individual neuron performs a simple processing task, the shear number of neurons give the brain is power. More importantly it is the number of connections which distinguish the way a brain function to the typical functioning a computer today, the ratio of connections to processing unit is much larger in the brain than in a computer. The behaviourist work of Pavlov and Skinner led Donald Hebb to develop a model of synapse in 1949 that could account for how associations could be formed . This model has become the

accepted model and is central to questions on how memories form and learning takes place. Consider the situation where two incoming neurons (A,B) synapse onto a third (C) and (before learning) a signal from A will be strong enough to cause C to fire but a signal from B will not. During learning when both A and B fire together biochemical processes will strengthen the response to signals from B. After learning a signal from B will be strong enough to cause C to fire. This general model has been confirmed by decades of research in memory. During learning specific cells change their properties which can be morphological changes including growth of new dendratic spines, increase in synapse numbers and dimensions and changes in electrical properties of a synaps. We will now examine the theories of how processing in the left and right hand hemisphere differ.
Research into Brain lateralization Much of the theory of left-right specialisation has been developed through examining patients who have had physical defects in one part of the brain. One of the earliest of these investigations was Paul Broca's work in 1861 with a patient nicknamed Tan who had a large cyst in the left hand side of his brain. Tan could only say one word: "Tan", hence the nickname. This indicated that some language functions were concentrated in the left hand side of the brain. Further study of eight patients who all had language problems revealed they also had left hemisphere lesions and the study of left-right specialisation was born.

Since Broca's early work there has been much research into the processing of language. Several specific areas of the brain have been identified which play a part in language (for most people these all reside in the left hemisphere).

Broca's area: plays a part in grammatical processing. Wernicke's area: naming object (syntactical processing) Angualar gyri: involved in the recognition of visual symbols Supra-marginal gyri: In most (97%) right-handed people language is controlled by the left hemisphere. Lefthanders have a more even distribution of language in both hemispheres. In 19% this is concentrated in the left hemisphere, and in 68% it is concentrated in the right hemisphere, the remainder have language processing in both hemispheres.

Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" , give a good overview of how we process language, the specific roles that certain areas of the brain play and also they types of If language is mainly processed on the left of the brain, then what happens on the right hand side, and what functions do the corresponding areas on the right hand side have? Here research has fewer results which are more contentious. We shall now move onto the split brain research of Dr. Roger W Sperry.
Nobel prize winner R Sperry's research concentrated on what happens when parts of the corpus callosum, which connects left and right hemisphere, is cut. Some of this work was on animals and some was on human patients who had their corpus callosum cut for medicinal reasons (often to alleviate

epilepsy). A typical result of this research involved presenting an image to the left eye (connected to right hand side of the brain), the patient would be unable to say the name of the object (using language centres in the left hemisphere), but could pick out a similar object with the left hand (right hemisphere) . Perhaps the most intriguing split brain research was with a patient of another pair of split brain researcher, Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph LeDoux, who had some limited language facilities in his right brain. This patient show marked preferences in responses from the two hemispheres. When asked, "What do you want to do?" the left hemisphere replied "draftsman", but the right hemisphere (using scrabble letters) replied "automobile race" . The overall results of Sperry's research can be summarised by his quote: "Everything we have seen indicates that the surgery has left these people with two separate minds. That is, two separate spheres of consciousness" .

Some specific differences between the two hemispheres resulted from this and subsequent research. The right-brain is better at: Right Hemisphere Specialities

Left Hemisphere

Copying of designs, Discrimination of shapes e.g. picking out a camouflaged object, Understanding geometric properties, Reading faces, Music, Global holistic processing, Understanding of metaphors, Expressing emotions, Reading emotions. Sensations on both side of face, Sound perceived by both ears, Pain, Hunger, Position.

Language skills, Skilled movement, Analytical time sequence processing.

Shared

Emotions neurotransmitters Grey Matter White Matter ratio

Negative emotions (fearful mournful feelings), Higher levels of norepinephrine More white-matter (longer axons) on right

Positive emotions Higher levels of dopamine more grey-matter (cell bodies) on the left.

One particular difference in patient with damage to one side of the brain is how they copy a diagram. A patient with left brain damage will tend to copy the overall outline of a diagram but

not the details and a patient with right brain damage will tend to get the details correct but not the overall outline.(Carter) Often the differences are small, but statistically significant. Some of the results also vary for left handed people. Numerous researchers using have confirmed these results using a variety of techniques. Functional brain imaging using EEG and PET scans, which record brain activity while a patient is performing a particular task are some of the more modern techniques. One curious fact is that women tend to have a more active corpus callosum with 10% more neuron fibers . The level of connection will have a large impact on mental processes. Due to the controversial nature of the subject a note on the reference is called for. The above results have been taken from R Carter, Mapping the Mind , pp48-61 and D Falk, Braindance, pp102-107 . Both books are popular science works rather than academic articles. However both authors seem to present relatively unbiased results of the scientific literature. Carter is a medical writer and she used the assistance of C Firth a Welcome Principal Research fellow as a consultant. Dean Falk is a professor at SUNY specialising in neuro-anatomy and biological anthropology. I have not found any reliable sources which contradict the above findings. The critiques tend to focus on the interpretations of these result, of which more will follow below.
Grey matter - white matter ratios

Of the above results the difference in the ratios of grey matter to white matter in the two hemisphere seemed deserves some more investigation. From a computational point of view the difference in these ratios can partially explain some of the differences in functioning of the two hemispheres. In the field of computer science different types of processing tasks require different types architecture. The typical desktop computer will have a single central processing unit, which will read and write data to from its memory. The central processing unit acts in a sequential manner performing a large number simple operations one by one at a very fast pace (several orders of magnitude quicker than the human brain). This is an example of an architecture with few connections and a very fast processing unit. This type of computer excels at performing routine processing tasks such as simple mathematical processing. The task of displaying a word processing document can easily be broken down into a sequence of mathematical operations that convert the data in memory into pixels on the screen. However it is poor at other tasks, often those which humans are good at: recognition of speech and images (faces). The field of Artificial Intelligence has struggled for many years to make any progress in these fields. Speech recognition is finally becoming more reliable, and visual recognition is only beginning to make progress. For these tasks a very different types of architecture show better results. These are often based on Neural Networks which have been heavily influenced the structure of the human brain and the Hebb model of learning in the synapse. The distinguishing feature of this approach is to have a large number of simpler processors and a very large number

of connections between them. Using feedback techniques this type of architecture can be made to learn by strengthening some of the connections between processors and weakening others. Speech and visual processing are mathematically two very different problems. Speech is a onedimensional temporal problem where as vision is a three dimensional special problem. Speed of processing is more important for temporal problems, whereas there are more interacting variables in spatial problems and requiring tasks like mentally rotating objects. The types of architecture for the two will be different. Speculatively the types of architecture for the two could depend of the ration of processors to connections with more connections required for the latter, i.e. the type of distinction observed in the different hemisphere. An emerging field is beginning to look at spatial-temporal problems which may require different architecture again. Even more speculative is an evolutionary approach to human brain development. The bi-lateral nature of the cortex perhaps owes most to our evolutional heritage where the brain has developed from the earlier mammalian brain where there was a direct connection with the left and right hand sides of the body. Now if we have a bi-lateral cortex, there are two main options, either it can be a pair of redundant systems each performing the same task (as in control systems of an airline), or the two halves can specialize. The cost of redundant systems is probably outweighs the advantages indicating a need to specialize. But how to specialise? One very simple way to achieve this would be to subtly alter the grey matter/white matter ratios and also the presentation of neurotransmitters. The results we see in the human brain could be a simple consequence of this specialization with the variations in functions tending to happen in the side most suitable for it. I have no evidence to backup this paragraph apart from a bit of (right brain) lateral thinking.
Learning styles and personality

Ned Herrmann is "Father of brain dominance technology". He drew on the work of Sperry and developed the theory brain dominance where people develop a dominant mode of thinking preference. These can range from an analytical "left brain" approach to "right brain" approaches involving pattern matching and intuitive understanding. These preferences have their roots in our genetic makeup and how it affects our underlying cognitive capabilities. For example left-right handed preferences have been observed in the womb. As we develop we tend to respond with our strongest abilities as these lead to quicker short-term rewards. This can create a positive feedback system that will strengthen those abilities. Eventually this can lead to a powerful preference for one style over the other and a dislike and discomfort for other modes of thinking. Herrmann then went onto develop the four-quadrant model of cognitive preferences and a questionnaire called the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) , . The inspiration for this model came from dividing the brain into as four different systems with four preferred styles:

A: Left cerebral hemisphere - analytical B: Left limbic system - sequential C: Right limbic system - interpersonal D: Right cerebral hemisphere - imaginative

An immediate critique is that there seems to be little evidence for differences in the left and right hand limbic systems. However, Herrmann's system does not try to be an accurate model of the way the brain functions. Instead it should really be thought of as a model of different styles, partially inspired by the brain, but also the result of extensive questionnaires. As he refined his questionnaires four (rather than just two) separate clusters seemed to emerge which are reflected in the model. Considerable work has gone into testing the validity of this system with overall positive results. It is worth examining these four styles in more detail:
A Quadrant: Analytical thinking.

Key word: logical, factual, critical, technical and quantitative. Preferred activities: collecting data, listening to informational lectures, reading textbooks. Judging ideas based on facts, criteria and logical reasoning.

B Quadrant: Sequential thinking.

Key word: conservative, structured, organised, detailed, and planned. Preferred activities: following directions, repetitive detailed homework problems, time management and schedules.

C Quadrant: Interpersonal thinking

Key word: kinaesthetic, emotional, spiritual, sensory, feeling. Preferred activities: listening to and sharing ideas, looking for personal meaning, sensory input, and group study.

D Quadrant: Imaginative thinking.

Key word: Visual, holistic, intuitive, innovative, and conceptual. Preferred activities: Looking at the big picture, taking initiative, simulations (what if questions), visual aids. Appreciate beauty of a problem, brainstorming.

One of the central ideas of the Herrmann's approach it to develop "whole brain thinking". This focussing on strengthening the week points by using techniques that require a particular style of thinking. This can lead to "Creative problem solving" where a combination of different techniques can be used to arrive at a better solution. Herrmann's theory offers a strong critique of traditional educational practices. These can be viewed as focussing on sequential reasoning skills and digestion of established theories. Creativity and C and D quadrant skills are often overshadowed or actively discouraged . An equivalent non-proprietary instrument developed was developed by Eugene Raudsepp: online test.

A related but independent theory is Howard Gardner's 1983 theory of Multiple Intelligences . Here he identified seven types of intelligence:

Verbal-linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Visual-spatial, Body-kinaesthetic, Auditory-musical, Inter-personal communication, Intra-personal communication,

Gardner later added Naturalist Intelligence and Existentialist Intelligence. Whilst Gardner had a background in neuro-psychology he does not appear to make any specific links between brain science and his theories. Gardener is a strong believer in the plurality of intelligences and does not consider these to be the definitive set. He is also keen to differentiate intelligences from learning styles. David Lazear's "Eight Ways of Knowing" expands upon this theme giving many sample exercises for each mode, as well as a rather uncritical review of the literature. The visualspatial seems to have some aspect of right brain styles. Of these the logical-mathematical intelligence seems a questionable grouping. Arithmetic is often associated with the left brain sequential processing yet there is good evidence that mathematically gifted children tend to be left handed implying a right-brain dominance . This could reflect a difference between early mathematics which is often a repetitive rote learning, and more advanced mathematics which often requires high levels of visual-spatial reasoning and abstract thinking. The naturalistic grouping is also questionable, some very different skills such as classifying flora and fauna (very much a analytical/sequential skill in Herrmann's system) to immersing yourself in a natural setting (accessing emotional and holistic preferences). Two other theories are also worthy of note: The 4MAT System of Learning styles developed by Bernice McCarthy is derived from the Kolb learning cycle and identifies four main types Divergers (Why questions), Assimilators (What questions), Converges (How questions) and Accommodators (What if questions). Studies have questioned the validity of Kolb's model. The VARK (Visual Auditory Reading Kinaesthetic) is another related model. Whilst this shows some characteristics of a left-right distinction, such as the presence of Visual and Kinaesthetic components associated with the right hemisphere, it is more a model of perceptual style rather than cognitive style. It does not address the different modes of thinking exhibited by sequential/holistic styles. The other is the, currently in vogue, Mayer-Briggs personality type index. Here four axes are used to record a persons dominant personality type: introversion/extraversion, sensing/intuitive, thinking/feeling and judging/perceiving. This gives a total of sixteen different types. Recent research (New Scientist, last year) has shown good correlation with some of these types and the presentation of certain genes. There are many other personality type theories and even C G Jung has got into the personality type debate .

If a simplified form of Mayers-Briggs, without the introversion/extraversion spectrum, is used it can be shown that it is essentially equivalent to the HBDI after some rotation of coordinate . In particular sensing/intuitive spectrum (openness to interpretation in the Big 5 model), fits well with a simplified version of left-right hemisphere specialization. It is worth expanding on this axis in more detail:
Information can be gathered through sensation (S), concentrating on facts and details, or through a more intuitive (N) process that seeks and constructs patterns and uses a global or holistic information gathering style

All the above models seem to echo some aspects of the left-right specialisation. As an aside we will briefly examine some of the underlying mathematical techniques used.
A Meta-Theory of Theories and Principal Component Analysis

Various correlations can be made between all these different theories and also with left-right preferences in the brain. It could be said that each theory shows a different aspect of the same fundamental variations. The number four (or eight) also seems to be popular in these theories. Perhaps this has more to do with the way we perceive information rather the underlying science. For example: splitting things into four quadrants allows two axis to be drawn which means that the variations can be easily drawn on the page. Also it is commonly believed that the maximum number of things we can hold in our short term memory is six of seven. Having four types makes it easy for us to remember the systems! A mathematically more elegant theory would be to consider that there are actually a very much higher number of variation, which maybe do not nicely fit into convenient categories, perhaps related to individual gene expressions. Indeed one researcher Guilford has identified over 120 factors to the structure of the human intellect . Principal component analysis is a statistical technique used for analysing data with a very large number of (correlated) variables. In this mathematical operations are applied to the data to pick out the dominant modes of variation. It is typically found that a large proportion of the variation can be summarised by the first few modes of variation. It could well be the case that the above theories have stumbled upon some of these dominant modes, and other theories report observations which are combinations of these modes. This opens up the question that there may be more as yet undiscovered modes which have weaker responses. This type technique has been successfully applied to the multitude of different personality test. Which has shown that most are subtle variants on the Big5 test.
Critiques

The whole field of left-right specialisation has been received some very vocal criticism.

"Brain scientists will tell you that the idea of a rigid divide is a popular myth. They even have a word for the public's enthusiasm for the subject: 'dichotomania'. Like 'modern phrenology' the word is a put-down, intended to imply that the real situation is far too complex for simple conclusions to be drawn." , emphasis mine. I've found no substantial criticism of the underlying science, most of the criticism seems to be of some of secondary works which draw conclusions far removed from science. The word rigid in the above quote is particularly important. It would be incorrect to say that anyone is "left brained" or "right brained" or that a particular task is carried out solely in one hemisphere. Its better to talk of general trends, indeed results from Herrmann seem to indicate that most people have more than one dominant mode . There is also a danger of concentrating one particular aspect of brain behaviour and missing other more important phenomena. There is also a vigorous globalisation/localisation debate. Are mental tasks carried out over the whole brain or in one particular area? Hard and fast answers seem to be elusive. Brain scan techniques do seem to suggest that certain tasks have greater levels of activity in particular areas. But there can be difference in individual people especially depending on handedness. The idea of repressed intellect seems to be common in some of these secondary works. With the idea that our intellectual capacity has been repressed by school, and society, and that all we need is a few simple techniques to let our creativity flow. One particular book seems to be a favourite target for critiques: "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: How to unlock your hidden artistic talents" by Betty Edwards . A lot of the criticism seems to be inspired by the title without a careful reading of the inside. Whilst it does present a simplified view of the brain it does also have one of the most concrete and convincing examples of technique specifically designed to utilise certain brain functions. This is concerned with copying a picture. Apparently, one of the problems with accurate drawing is caused by our symbolic processing: we tend to use pathways similar to those used for language to process images and copy images. This can result in a cartoon style result. By the simple procedure of turning the picture to be copied upside-down the symbolic processing is suppressed and very much more accurate pictures result. Gardner's work seems to have also drawn a lot of criticism . Much of this stems around the use of the word "intelligence", where "interest" might be a more appropriate term. Gardner defines "an intelligence" as set of techniques used to solve a problem or produce a work (e.g. a scientific theory or musical composition) . Personally I'm suspicious over any use of the word intelligence, "learning style" (i.e. techniques we use learn) seems a more concrete term to use. Other critiques focus around the lack of evidence for results from the classroom. I've found Gardner's work (actually Lazear's interpretation) to be rather unsatisfactory. Certain parts of the classification seem to be muddled, there seems to be no treatment of concepts of holistic (large system, D quadrant) understanding. The work as a whole is void of any critical analysis, instead treating the theory as a given.

Herrmann's work does not seem to have attracted as much criticism, indeed when viewed as a representation of the Mayers-Briggs scheme there seems to be overwhelming evidence for the general scheme. Critiques of Mayers-Briggs (and by implication Herrmann) centre on the methodology used rather than the underlying traits: the lack of falsifiability, the possibility that subjects will give responses to enhance certain characteristics they would like to have, and the dangers of pigeonholing.
Educational Implications

If we accept the theory of left-right dominance and learning styles then there are profound implications for education:
Most ... educators take the traditional view of students as being a homogenous learning group, with similar interest in [and] aptitudes for the subject. However, greater learning and understanding may be accomplished if the learning group is thought of as being heterogeneous, that is, highly dissimilar in interest and aptitudes.

These variations have implications throughout the process of education:

Selection of appropriate courses: both those suited to the learning style of student, but also those aimed at strengthening certain aspects. Methods of delivery of material: using techniques which appeal to a range of senses but also with a mix of big picture and detail. Some students may prefer to see the big picture first and then break it down, other may prefer to study the details first working up in a logical manner to more involved material. Activities that appeal to and strengthen different styles. Assessment methods that reward different styles but which also stimulate different modes of thinking.

Awareness of a students learning styles may help in tailoring a course, although there is a danger of pigeonholing. These need no necessarily be through a formal questionnaire, a teacher may become aware of the styles as they work with the student, showing a good differentiation. Initial assessment such as the VARK test may be useful, but reaction to this at St Austell seems to be mixed:
We don't use the VARK results much as they generally give multi-modal results" Anon.

There seems to be a problem with what to do with the results to the once they are collected. How do we use these results to inform our teaching? Awareness of their own preferred styles can be a useful tool for teachers: do they tend to work with a particular style? Could other techniques be used in their teaching? How much are their own ideas of education influenced by their preferred styles? For example when asked the question "What is wrong with education?" a left brained thinker would typically reply, "Get back to basis and discipline - get rid of unnecessary frills like sport

and art". A right-brained thinker would rather suggest cooperative, hands on educational activities, including integrating social and creative activities into the whole of education. And perhaps more importantly how do they react to students with a different style? Some good examples of very different educational styles can be found in the field of introductory IT. The European Computer Driving License (ECDL) lies strongly in a quadrant B learning and assessment style. The course material consists of a very step-by-step approach: "type this text", "click this button". The assessment follows a similar style: make this heading bold, and a paragraph here. As such it may be appropriate to many learners, who comprise much of the intended client group, but it might not be suitable to others. Furthermore, it does not address all the skill necessary for fully successfully using a computer, issues like how to design a document or application, or how to successfully navigate the very diverse nature of the Internet. This can be contrasted with the Open College Network's introductory IT course and assessment. The assessment were heavily based around portfolio building with a criteria referenced making scheme. This more open ended system address a broader range of skills and are closer to how a computer will actually be used. This did require greater input from the teacher and crossreferencing work pieces with criteria can be a confusing process.
Conclusions

The biological understanding of how two the two hemisphere of our brain function has now reached general consensus. There is still much work to do, particularly on the differences observed between individuals and understanding all the brain processes involved on cognition. We may never find the localisers dream of every pattern of though can be located into specific areas, things are more likely to show some combination of local and global processing. No doubt much more will be found this century as techniques of functional brain imaging and genetic understanding improve. There also seems to be a convergence of the different models of learning styles and personality, which all seem to echo some flavour of left-right specialisation. However, it probably unwise to make too much of a causal link between biology and learning styles as it can lead to polarised ideas that we are either a left-brained or right-brained thinker. In reality we show a mix of different styles influenced as much by past experience as by biology. The theory gives us just one dimension to describe the vast range of difference in peoples thinking. These theories, which have been around for the past thirty years, do raise many important questions for education. Has the educational system responded? There is some evidence that it has: there is a wider range of activities used in the class room. But there is still much to address: we still have high numbers of students who do not respond well to education, is this a learning styles issue?

For me studying this issue has been an interesting journey. It has focussed my attention on the different modes of thinking and styles used by the different authors. For example Lazear seems to use a very visual style, trying to describe all aspects of learning, but little critical analysis. Other authors are of a more critical persuasion often presenting their work in a more linear fashion. This raises questions about how to judge each work: is it just a reflection of the favoured modes of the authors and should these be judged by other criteria? It has also caused me to think about the range of skills used in writing this essay:

Accumulation of information Critical analysis of the sources Fitting the information into a coherent whole Filtering the information Presenting the information in a sequential manor Attention to detail and time management

These seem to address a wide range of techniques across both side of the brain. At one point I had hopped to look at how Dyslexia fitted with this scheme, however time and space precluded this. Intriguingly the two examples of quadrant D thinkers in Lumsdaine: Einstein and De-Vinci are both also listed as dyslexic and left-handed. One study seems to indicate that there is a relationship but its far from clear and seems to indicate that dyslexics may not be a coherent grouping showing bi-model results in two laterilazation tests. To end I would like to finish with a cartoon from Scot Mc Cloud's "Understanding Comics" . For me this illustrates much of a "right-brain style": strongly visual, and big conceptual concepts. If only all education was done this way!
References

Brain Biology

S Rose, The Making of Memory, Bantam Books, London, 1992 S. Pinker, The Language Instinct, Penguin, 1994. R.W. Sperry, Brain bisection and consciousness, in How the Self Controls Its Brain, ed C. Eccles. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1966. R. Carter, Mapping the Mind, Phoenix, London, 2004, Originally Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1998.. D Falk, Braindance, Henry Holy, New York, 1992. Sala, Sergio Della, editor. Mind myths: Exploring popular assumptions about the mind and brain. J. Wiley & Sons, New York. 1999.

Learning Styles and personality types

Ned Herrmann, The Creative Brain, Brain Books, Lake Lure, North Carolina, 1990. Herrmann International website. E. Lumsdaine, M. Lumsdaine, Creative Problem Solving, McGraw-Hill, 1995.

E. Raudsepp, Managing Your Career. College Edition of the National Employment Weekly, Fall, 711. 1992. David Lazear, Eight ways of knowing: Teaching for Multiple Intelligences (3rd edition). SkyLight Professional Development, Illinois, 1999. Gardener, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence (1983) ISBN 0465025102 (1993 ed.) C. G. Jung, Gerhard Adler, R. F.C. Hull, Psychological Types (Collected Works of C.G. Jung Vol.6) Bollingen, 1976. J.P. Guilford, Way Beyond the IQ, Creative Education Foundation, 1977. Wikipedia, Theories of multiple intelligences, (Version 11 April 05). Wikipedia, Mayers-Briggs Type Indicator (Version 11 April 05). kuro5hin, Describes the history of the Big5

Other

A Growth Model for Shape, R. J. Morris, J.T. Kent, K.V. Mardia, R. G. Ackroyd, Proc. Medical Image Understanding and Analysis, London 2000. H. Singh, M.W. O'Boyle, Interhemispheric Interaction During Global-Local Processing in Mathematatically Gifted Adolescents, Average-Ability Youth, and College Students. Neuropsychology, Vol 18 No 2, 2004. Stout, D.E. & Ruble, T.L. (1994). A reassessment of the Role of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI1985) in Accounting Education Research, Journal of Accounting Education, 12(2), 89-104. R. Martin, R. Hulme, J. Karayan, Students' Cognitive Styles and Success in AIS Classes, preprint Nutt, P.C. (1989). Making Tough Decisions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. B. Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, Fontana/Collins, 1982. J. J. Taschetta, J.R. Achor, The Whole Brain Approach in Teaching Engineering Technology, 1990 ASEE Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1, (1990) pp 311-316. B. Keffe, D. Swinney, On the relation between Hemispherical Specialisation and developmental dyslexia. preprint, 1979. S. McCloud, Understanding Comics, Kitchen Sink Press/HarperCollins. 1993.

Citation
You can cite this work as: R. J. Morris (2006) Left Brain, Right Brain, Whole Brain? An examination into the theory of brain laterilization, learning styles and the implications for education. PGCE Thesis, Cornwall College St Austell, http://singsurf.org/brain/rightbrain.html