Advertisement

Callosal Agenesis — A Natural Split-Brain Overview

  • Malcolm A. Jeeves
Part of the Advances in Behavioral Biology book series (ABBI, volume 42)

Abstract

Though diverse, the contributions to this book have all focused on a common topic. Such diversity, whilst potentially enriching the depth of understanding afforded, at the same time makes the task of pulling together the various threads into a coherent pattern, unusually challenging. This final chapter attempts, first, to highlight the salient points contained within each of the main sections of this volume. Inevitably this requires radical selection and necessarily omitting some of the important points covered in detail in earlier chapters. This selection in turn affords the opportunity to look for recurring themes which may be running through the earlier specialist sections.

Keywords

Corpus Callosum Anterior Commissure Bimanual Coordination Neuropsychological Profile Callosal Agenesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berlucchi, G. and Antonini, A., 1990, The role of the corpus callosum in the representation of the visual field in cortical areas, in: “Brain Circuits and Functions of the Mind. Essays in honour of Roger W. Sperry,” C. Trevarthen, ed., CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, C.R. and Geffen, G.M., 1989, Corpus callosum section and recent memory, Brain 112, 165–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cowey, A.,1985, Disturbances of stereopsis by brain damage, in:“Brain Mechanisms and Spatial Vision, NATO Advanced Study Institute Series,” D. Ingle, ed., Martimas Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  4. Cronin-Golomb, A.,1986, Subcortical transfer of cognitive information in subjects with complete forebrain commissurotomy, Cortex 22: 499–519.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dennis, M., 1976, Impaired sensory and motor differentiation with corpus callosum agenesis: a lack of callosal inhibition during ontogeny, Neuropsychologia 14: 455–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dennis, M., 1981, Language in a congenitally acallosal brain, Brain Lang. 12: 33–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamilton, C.R. and Vermeire, B.A., 1986, Localization of visual functions with partially split-brain monkeys, in: “Two Hemispheres-one Brain: Functions of the Corpus Callosum,” F. Lepore, M. Ptito, and H.H. Jasper, eds., Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Innocenti, G.M., 1981, Growth and reshaping of axons in the establishment of visual callosal connections, Science. 212: 824–827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jeeves, M.A., 1965, Psychological studies of three cases of congenital agenesis of the corpus callosum, in: “Functions of the Corpus Callosum”, CIBA Foundation Study Groups, Vol 20, E.G. Ettlinger, ed., Churchill, London.Google Scholar
  10. Jeeves, M.A., 1979, Some limits to interhemispheric integration in cases of callosal agenesis and partial commissurotomy, in: “Structure and Function of the Cerebral Commissures,” LS. Russell, M.W. van Hof, and G. Berlucchi, eds., Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  11. Jeeves, M.A.,1986, Callosal agenesis: neural and developmental adaptations, in:“Two Hemispheres-one Brain: Functions of the Corpus Callosum,” F. Lepore, M. Ptito, and H.H. Jasper, eds., Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Jeeves, M.A., 1991, Hemispheric Interactions, in: “Encyclopedia of Human Biology”, Vo14, R. Dulbecco, ed., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Jeeves, M.A., 1991, Stereoperception in callosal agenesis and partial callosotomy, Neuropsychologia 29: 1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeeves, M.A. and Milner, A.D.,1987, Specificity and plasticity in interhemispheric integration: evidence from callosal agenesis, in:“Duality and Unity of the Brain - Unified Functioning and Specialization of the Hemispheres,” D. Ottoson, ed, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  15. Jeeves, M.A. and Rajalakshmi, R., 1964, Psychological studies of a case of congenital agenesis of the corpus callosum, Neuropsychologia 2: 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeeves, M.A. and Silver, P.H., 1988a, The formation of finger grip during prehension in an acallosal patient, Neuropsychologia 26: 153–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeeves, M.A. and Silver, P.H., 1988b, Interhemispheric transfer of spatial tactile information in callosal agenesis and partial commissurotomy, Cortex 24: 601–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeeves, M.A., Silver, P.H., and Jacobson, I., 1988, Bimanual co-ordination in callosal agenesis and partial commissurotomy, Neuropsychologia 26: 833–850.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeeves, M.A., Silver, P.H., and Milner, A.B., 1988, Role of the corpus callosum in the development of a bimanual motor skill, Del,. Neuropsychol. 44: 305–323.Google Scholar
  20. Jeeves, M.A. and Temple, C.M., 1987, A further study of language function in callosal agenesis, Brain Lang. 32: 325–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jeeves, M.A. and Wilson, A.F., 1969, Tactile transfer in neonatal callosal section in the cat, Psychon. Sci. 16: 235–237.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, L.E., 1984, Vocal responses to left visual stimuli following forebrain commissurotomy, Neuropsychologia 22: 153–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laget, P., d’Allest, A.M., Fihey, R., and Lortholary, O., 1977, L’interet des potentials evoques somesthesiques homolateraux dans les agénésies du corps calleux, Rev. E.E.G. Neurophysiol. Clin. 7: 498–502.Google Scholar
  24. Laget, P., Raimbault, J. d’Allest, A.M., Flores-Guevara, R., Mariani, J., and Thieriot-Prevost, G., 1976, La maturation des potentiels evoques somesthésiques, PES, chez l’homme, Electroencephalogr. Neurophysiol. Clin. 40: 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lassonde, M., 1986, The facilitatory influence of the corpus callosum on intrahemispheric processing, in: “Two Hemispheres-one Brain: Functions of the Corpus Callosum,” F. Lepore, M. Ptito, and H.H. Jasper, eds., Alan R. Liss, New York..Google Scholar
  26. Martin, A., 1985, A qualitative limitation on visual transfer via the anterior commissure, Brain 108: 43–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meerwaldt, J.D., 1983, Disturbance of spatial perception in a patient with agenesis of the corpus callosum, Neuropsychologia 21: 161–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milner, A.D. and Jeeves, M.A., 1981, The functions of the corpus callosum in infancy and adulthood, Beh. Brain Sci. 4 (l): 30–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moscovitch, M., 1977, The development of lateralization of language functions and its relation to cognitive and linguistic development: a review and some theoretical speculations, in: “Language Development and Neurological Theory,’ S.J. Segalowitz and F.A. Gruber, eds, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Myers, J.J. and Sperry, R.W., 1985, Interhemispheric communication after section of the forebrain commissures, Cortex 21: 249–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Njiokiktjien, C., 1991, A Historical Perspective, in: “The Child’s Corpus Callosum,” G. Ramaekers and C. Njiokiktjien, eds, Suyi, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  32. Perenin, M.T., 1978, Visual function within the hemianopic field following early cerebral hemidecortication in man–II. Pattern discrimination, Neuropsychologia 16: 697–708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perenin, M.T. and Jeannerod, M., 1978, Visual function within the hemianopic field following early cerebral hemidecortication in man–I. Spatial localization, Neuropsychologia 16: 1–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Preilowski, B.F.P., 1972, Possible contributions of the anterior forebrain commissures to bilateral motor coordination, Neuropsychologia 10: 267–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ptito, M. and Lepore, F., 1983, Interocular transfer in cats with early callosal section, Nature 301: 513–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pamaekers, G., 1991, Functions of the corpus callosum in adults, in: “The Child’s Corpus Callosum,” G. Ramaekers and C. Njiokiktjien, eds, Suyi, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  37. Risse, G.L., Ledoux, J., Springer, S.P., Wilson, D.H., and Gazzaniga, M.S., 1978, The anterior commissure in man: functional variation in a multisensory system, Neuropsychologia 16: 23–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sauerwein, H.C. and Lassonde, M., 1983, Intra-and interhemispheric processing of visual information in callosal agenesis, Neuropsychologia 21: 167–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sergent, J., 1986, Subcortical coordination of hemisphere activity in commissurotomized patients, Brain 109: 357–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sergent, J., 1990, Furtive incursions into bicameral minds: Integrative and coordinating role of subcortical structures, Brain 109: 537–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sperry, R.W., 1990, Forebrain commissures and conscious awareness, in: “Brain Circuits and Functions of the Mind. Essays in Honour of Roger W. Sperry,” C. Trevarthen, ed., CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Sperry, R.W., Zaidel, E., and Zaidel, D., 1979, Self recognition and social awareness in the disconnected minor hemisphere, Neuropsychologia 17: 153–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Temple, C.M., Jeeves, M.A., and Vilarroya, O.O., 1989, Ten pen men: Explicit phonological processing in two children with callosal agenesis, Brain Lang. 37: 548–564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Temple, C.M., Jeeves, M.A., and Vilarroya, O.O., 1990, Reading in callosal agenesis, Brain Lang. 39: 235–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Timney, B. and Lansdown, G., 1988, Binocular depth perception, visual acuity and visual fields in cats following neonatal section of the optic chiasm, Exp. Brain Res. 207.Google Scholar
  46. Timney, B., Elberger, A.J., and Vandewater, M.L., 1985, Binocular depth perception in the cat following early corpus callosum section, Exp. Brain Res. 60: 19–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trevarthen, C. and Sperry, R.W., 1973, Perceptual unity of the ambient visual field in human commissurotomy patients, Brain 96: 547–570.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weiskrantz, L., 1986, “Blindsight: A Case Study and Implications,” Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  49. Zaidel, E., 1976, Language, dichotic listening and the disconnected hemispheres, in: “Conference on Human Brain Function,” D.O. Walter, L. Rogers, and J. M. Finzi-Fried, eds., Brain Information ServiceBRI Publications Office, UCLA.Google Scholar
  50. Zaidel, E., 1986, Callosal dynamics and right hemisphere language, in: “Two Hemispheres-one Brain: Functions of the Corpus Callosum,” F. Lepore, M. Ptito, and H.H. Jasper, eds., Alan Liss, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malcolm A. Jeeves
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychological LaboratoryUniversity of St. AndrewsSt.Andrews, FifeScotland

Personalised recommendations