On opening up the top of your head, one of the most striking features of the brain’s structure is that it is divided into two hemispheres. Delving further, you will notice that the two hemispheres are connected with a bundle of fibres called the corpus callosum. But what role does this architecture of the brain have in terms of how the person makes their way around the world? What influence does it have on perception of events in the world?
On opening up the top of your head, one of the most striking
features of the brain’s structure is that it is divided into two
hemispheres. Delving further, you will notice that the two hemispheres
are connected with a bundle of fibres called the corpus callosum. But
what role does this architecture of the brain have in terms of how the
person makes their way around the world? What influence does it have on
perception of events in the world?
The precise role of the left and the right hemispheres of the brain has
been a topic of continual interest throughout the last century of
psychology. The two hemispheres have been found to process different
aspects of information, and the distinction has given rise to pop
psychological theories of left-brain and right-brain in learning styles
and personality dimensions (for a debunking of the myths and an elegant
summary of the evident distinctions, see Corballis, 1999), as well as
information-processing theories about asymmetrical processing of (among
other things) words, numbers and faces (Ivry & Robertson, 1997).
Yet the difference in processing between the left and right hemispheres
of the brain are extremely subtle compared with, say, the larger
differences between the function of the frontal lobes, involved in
planning and decision making, and the posterior areas of the brain,
involved in early visual processing. Or compared with the distinction
between the cortex and the limbic system, or between the right
hemisphere and the elbow. Clearly the right cerebral hemisphere is
substantially different in its functioning from the nerve endings and
motor neurons in the elbow; but there is no (substantial) field of
psychology comparing and contrasting the functioning of the elbow and
This suggests that psychologists’ fascination in comparisons between the
two hemispheres is due to the nuanced distinctions in their functioning
– if they were very different then the match just would not be
interesting. Yet the most spectacular asymmetry of all in human brains
– the location of language production in the left hemisphere – not only
distinguishes it from the right hemisphere, but also from the brains of
other apes (Corballis, 1991). Language is one principal property of
what makes us human, but why is it a lateralised function, and what
effect does this have on functioning in the other hemisphere?
In this article I discuss three main themes concerning hemispheric processing:
1. How does the architecture of the brain, in terms of two hemispheres
connected by the corpus callosum, influence the way the brain processes
2. What causes hemispheric asymmetries, and what properties of the brain may give rise to behavioural asymmetries?
3. How does the brain interact with the world through which it moves,
and how does this interaction influence hemispheric asymmetries?
These questions may productively be addressed using behavioural
laboratory experiments, or imaging studies. A further method employs
neural network models to study hemispheric function. Neural network
models incorporate the neuronal structure of the brain in their
processing, in terms of having many interconnected ‘neurons’, or units.
Individual units in these models do not do much on their own, but by
changing the strength of the connections between the units, the network
can learn to solve complex tasks. A key property of these models is
that they learn from experience, and their solution to tasks is
constrained and driven by the architecture of the network, in terms of
which connections are in place and how those connections change their
strength. In our research, neural network models with bi-hemispheric
structure are compared with models without this hemispheric
distinction. Through this comparison, we can make suggestions about the
effect of the brain’s structure on behaviour. In the remainder of this
article, I review several studies that use this technique to address
the questions above.
Influences of the hemispheric architecture on behaviour
The anatomy of the visual system is such that objects viewed in the
left visual field (LVF) are initially processed in the right hemisphere
(RH) of the brain, and objects in the right visual field (RVF) are
initially projected to the left hemisphere (LH). So, processing within
a hemisphere can be investigated by presenting stimuli just within one
visual field, and processing between the hemispheres can be promoted by
presenting stimuli in both the LVF and the RVF.
Imagine a simple task where two letters are presented, and the
participant has to determine whether they are the same shape. So, ‘a’
and ‘a’ match, but ‘a’ and ‘b’ do not, and neither do ‘b’ and ‘B’. Now,
the participant is given the same sets of letters, but this time the
task is to say whether the letters have the same name. People are
slower and make more errors in this task: ‘a’ and ‘b’ do not match but
‘a’ and ‘a’, and ‘b’ and ‘B’ do. Banich and Belger (1990) found that
when the task is easy people responded more quickly when both letters
were presented within one visual field. However, when the task was more
complex, as in the letter-naming task, responses were quicker when one
letter was presented within each visual field. In other words,
within-hemisphere processing was best for the easy task, whereas the
hemispheres working together was best for the harder task.
Our neural network model of this task incorporated the LVF and RVF
connecting to the RH and LH respectively (Monaghan & Pollmann,
2003). The two hemispheres in the model were allowed to interconnect,
to simulate the role of the corpus callosum. The model learned to match
shapes or names of letters. The model produced precisely the same
behaviour as humans. Shape-matching tasks were easier within each
hemisphere whereas name-matching tasks were easier for across
hemisphere presentations. Constructing a model of this behaviour
enabled us to investigate precisely why there was this
cross-hemispheric advantage for harder tasks. For the name-matching
task, when both letters were presented to one visual field, the model
drew on the resources of both its hemispheres. This meant that there
was a lot of transfer across the corpus callosum, which slowed
processing down. When one letter was presented to each hemisphere, much
less transfer had to occur and performance was quicker and more
accurate. Brain imaging data supported the neural network model’s
insight into hemispheric functioning: for harder tasks both hemispheres
of the brain are involved regardless of whether information is
presented to just one hemisphere.
Asymmetric properties resulting in behavioural asymmetries
The architecture of the brain enables processing within each
hemisphere to occur relatively independently of the processing of the
other hemisphere. This can confer an advantage for easy tasks but may
slow things down when tasks are hard, as in the above study. Yet, the
division in the brain also provides potential for modularity or
specialisation of processing within each hemisphere. Such
specialisation can be observed by comparing performance for stimuli
presented to the LVF or to the RVF. Further insight into hemispheric
specialisation can be determined from studies of patients with
lateralised brain damage.
Caramazza et al. (2000) reported a study of aphasic patients where
left-brain damage resulted in impairments to repeating consonants and
right-brain damage resulted in damage to reproducing vowels. We
investigated this effect in a neural network model that had to
reproduce consonants and vowels with two sets of resources –
representing the LH and the RH – involved in the task (Monaghan &
Shillcock, 2003). After the neural network had learned to solve the
task, we damaged one or other side of the model and examined the
model’s ability to reproduce vowels and consonants. We found that one
half of the model became specialised for vowels and the other half
always became specialised for consonants. The hemispheric structure of
the model promoted modularity of processing and specialisation in
different aspects of the task of phoneme reproduction. This study
showed that separation of resources can result in modular processing,
but it did not determine in advance which half of the model would
become specialised for consonants or vowels. Our next studies attempted
to incorporate asymmetries in processing in a neural network model to
predict exactly which hemisphere would specialise for a given task.
Neglect refers to an impairment following lateralised brain damage
where the patient finds it difficult to orient towards one side of
objects. Neglect patients may eat from only one half of their dinner
plate, shave only one half of their face, and omit letters from one
side of a word. However, damage to the RH very often results in neglect
of the left side of objects, but damage to the LH tends to result in
considerably less severe neglect (Mennemeier et al., 1997). So what
different contributions are the two hemispheres making to the visual
processing of objects?
In our neural network model of this behaviour, we included asymmetries
in the response properties of the neurons in the LH and RH of the
brain, that have been posited to underlie a range of behavioural
asymmetries in performance (Monaghan & Shillcock, 2004). The theory
was that the LH prioritises processing from neurons that respond to a
small region of vision, whereas the RH processes neurons that respond
to a much larger region. The model accurately reflected the more severe
neglect following RH than LH damage.
A further consequence of the model’s performance was that neglect for
words should be more severe following LH damage than RH damage, even
though for other types of object RH damage resulted in more severe
impairments than LH damage. Similar effects have been found in patient
studies (Monaghan & Shillcock, 2001).
These studies have investigated the potential impact of the hemispheric
structure of the brain on development of asymmetric processing, and the
type of asymmetries that may generate observable behavioural
asymmetries. However, the brain does not occupy a vacuum, and so
interactions between the brain and the world provide further
possibilities for the development of asymmetries. In the next section I
review some potential environmental contributions to the asymmetries
observed in the brain.
Hemispheres and the environment
We have seen that visual stimuli presented in the RVF initially
project to the LH, and stimuli presented in the LVF project to the RH.
But what happens when stimuli are presented in the centre of vision?
The same principle applies: parts of stimuli to the left of centre are
projected to the RH, and parts to the right of centre project to the
LH. This prompted my colleague Richard Shillcock to an extraordinary
insight. When staring closely at the centre of an object, half of what
is seen of the object is initially processed by the LH and half by the
RH. The brain does an extremely good job of tying up the division, so
you can’t see the join, but it is there nonetheless. For most objects
in the world this division of visual information does not have a big
impact, as much of what we look at is roughly symmetrical (for example,
trees, tigers – when they are running directly towards you – or
pizzas), but for some objects one side is not predictable from the
other. A prime example of this is written words. Given the letters ‘pe’
at the start of a word, then it could end with ‘n’, ‘ck’, ‘nguin’,
‘regrination’, and numerous others. When we read, we tend to look
slightly to the left of centre, meaning that about half the word
initially goes to each half of the brain. What influence does this
asymmetry in the reading environment have on processing in the brain?
We constructed a set of neural network models to investigate the impact
of this division of word information on language processing in the LH
and RH. We found that the point in the word where people prefer to look
when they’re reading (slightly to the left of centre) corresponds to
the point at which information about the word’s identity is balanced
between the LH and RH (Shillcock et al., 2000). This is because there
is slightly more information near the beginning of the word than the
end about the word’s identity. Our modelling suggested that the
preferential viewing position of words is an optimal method of reading
because it neatly divides up the quantity of information in the LH and
RH – a situation the studies on shape- and name-matching tasks, above,
indicated was most efficient for the brain.
These asymmetric visual properties of words were also found to be
sufficient to create asymmetries in processing the meaning of words in
a neural network.
The LH is most sensitive to words that are related in terms of dominant
or closely related meanings, whereas the RH is more sensitive to words
that are more distantly related. Thus, the LH responds to ‘money’ as
the dominant meaning of bank, whereas the RH is more sensitive to
‘river’, a less often used meaning of ‘bank’. Similarly, the LH is
sensitive to the relation between ‘sofa’ and ‘chair’, and the RH is
more sensitive to the relation between ‘sofa’ and ‘lamp’ (Chiarello et
al., 1990). The neural network model learned to make the match between
the written forms of words and their meanings (Monaghan &
Shillcock, 2004). We found that, purely as a consequence of asymmetries
in the word – more information and variability on the left – the RH of
the model became more sensitive to more distant meaning relations than
the LH. Thus, the hemispheric asymmetry in representing the meaning of
words was purely an interaction between the environment and the
bi-hemispheric structure of the brain.
It is a moot point to what extent the hemispheric asymmetries we
observe in language processing are a consequence of the environment,
and to what extent they are due to latent processing preferences in the
two hemispheres. Hebrew is the reverse of English, in that there is
more information on the right of the word. Readers of Hebrew indeed
actually show less asymmetry in language processing than do readers of
English (Brysbaert & Nazir, 2005). This suggests that the RH
propensity for more distantly related meanings is at least partially a
consequence of the properties of the lexicon interacting with inherent
processing distinctions in the brain.
The view of words being initially divided between the two hemispheres
of the brain also resonates with long-standing claims about the
connection between reading difficulties and impaired hemispheric
transfer (Orton, 1925). We tested a neural network model learning to
produce the spoken forms for visually presented words when transfer
between the LH and RH of the model was impaired. The model with
impaired callosal transfer demonstrated difficulties in reading,
particularly for irregularly pronounced words such as ‘pint’ or ‘bind’.
These words have been found to cause particular difficulties for
surface dyslexics (Shillcock & Monaghan, 2001).
There are structural concordances between the LH and RH for all
brain regions. This, together with the fact that the two hemispheres
operate in parallel, has created substantial and sustained interest for
the role of the two hemispheres in psychological processes. The
differences between the two hemispheres are subtle, but occasionally
very substantial, such as the facility for language production in the
LH. Comparing how the two hemispheres process information provides
insight into the potential range of solutions available to the brain
for solving tasks. In addition, such studies illuminate the value of
modularity of processing in the brain and the importance of slightly
different but complementary ways of processing information.
The use of neural networks that implement the coarse anatomical
distinctions of the two hemispheres enables insight into several
aspects of hemispheric processing. The studies reported here indicate
that the divided architecture has a profound impact on the way our
brain learns to solve cognitive tasks, and that this learning is a
complex and rich interaction between asymmetries that are out there in
the world and those that are internally determined.
- Padraic Monaghan is in the Department of Psychology, University of York. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Padraic Monaghan’s webpage:
Centre for Connectionist Modelling of Cognitive Processes: anc.ed.ac.uk/cccp
What hits the eye when it reads (video demonstrations): nbr.physiol.ox.ac.uk/
How the eye connects to the visual cortex: tinyurl.com/0qg6s
Discuss and debate
Which differences between left- and right-brain functioning stand up to scientific scrutiny?
How independent is processing within the two hemispheres of the brain?
What insights into modularity are given by examining hemispheric processing?
What are the limitations of neural network modelling as a research methodology in psychology?
Have your say on these or other issues this article raises. E-mail
‘Letters’ on email@example.com or contribute to our forum via www.thepsychologist.org.uk.
Banich, M.T. & Belger, A. (1990). Interhemispheric interaction:
How do the hemispheres divide and conquer a task? Cortex, 26, 77–94.
Brysbaert, M. & Nazir, T. (2005). Visual constraints on written
word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing position effect.
Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 216–228.
Caramazza, A., Chialant, D., Capasso, D. & Miceli, G. (2000).
Separable processing of consonants and vowels. Nature, 403, 428–430.
Chiarello, C., Burgess, C., Richards, L. & Pollock, A. (1990).
Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Some
words do, some words don’t… Sometimes, some places. Brain and Language,
Corballis, M.C. (1991). The lopsided ape: The evolution of the generative mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corballis, M.C. (1999). Are we in our right minds? In S. Della Sala (Ed.) Mind myths (pp. 26–42). Chichester: Wiley.
Ivry, R. & Robertson, L. (1998). The two sides of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mennemeier, M., Vezey, E., Chatterjee, A., Rapcsak, S.Z. & Heilman,
K.M. (1997). Contributions of the left and right cerebral hemispheres
to line bisection. Neuropsychologia, 35, 703–715.
Monaghan, P. & Pollmann, S. (2003). Division of labor between the
hemispheres for complex but not simple tasks: An implemented
connectionist model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132,
Monaghan, P. & Shillcock, R.C. (2001). Applying neuroanatomical
distinctions to connectionist cognitive modelling. In R. French (Ed.)
Proceedings of the 6th Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop
(pp.1–12). London: Springer-Verlag.
Monaghan, P. & Shillcock, R.C. (2003). Connectionist modelling of
the separable processing of consonants and vowels. Brain and Language,
Monaghan, P. & Shillcock, R.C. (2004). Hemispheric asymmetries in
cognitive modeling: Connectionist modeling of unilateral visual
neglect. Psychological Review, 111, 283–308.
Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R.C. & McDonald, S. (2004). Hemispheric
asymmetries in the split-fovea model of semantic processing. Brain and
Language, 88, 339–354.
Orton, S.T. (1925). ‘Word-blindness’ in school children. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 14, 581–615.
Shillcock, R.C., Ellison, M.T. & Monaghan, P. (2000). Eye-fixation
behaviour, lexical storage and visual word recognition in a split
processing model. Psychological Review, 107, 824–851.
Shillcock, R.C. & Monaghan, P. (2001). Connectionist modelling of
surface dyslexia based on foveal splitting: Impaired pronunciation
after only two half pints. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of
the Cognitive Science Society (pp.916–921). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence