Behavioral evidence for inter-hemispheric cooperation during a lexical decision task: a divided visual field experiment

The corpus callosum is the major neural pathway that connects homologous cortical areas of the two cerebral hemispheres. The nature of how that interhemispheric connection is manifested is the topic of this review; specifically, does the corpus callosum serve to communicate an inhibitory or excitatory influence on the contralateral hemisphere? Several studies take the position that the corpus callosum provides the pathway through which a hemisphere or cortical area can inhibit the other hemisphere or homologous cortical area in order to facilitate optimal functional capacity. Other studies suggest that the corpus callosum integrates information across cerebral hemispheres and thus serves an excitatory function in interhemispheric communication. This review examines these two contrasting theories of interhemispheric communication. Studies of callosotomies, callosal agenesis, language disorders, theories of lateralization and hemispheric asymmetry, and comparative research are critically considered. The available research, no matter how limited, primarily supports the notion that the corpus callosum serves a predominantly excitatory function. There is evidence, however, to support both theories and the possibility remains that the corpus callosum can serve both an inhibitory and excitatory influence on the contralateral hemisphere.

The corpus callosum is the largest white matter structure in the human brain, connecting cortical regions of both hemispheres. Complete and partial callosotomies or callosal lesion studies have granted more insight into the function of the corpus callosum, namely the facilitation of communication between the cerebral hemispheres. How the corpus callosum mediates this information transfer is still a topic of debate. Some pose that the corpus callosum maintains independent processing between the two hemispheres, whereas others say that the corpus callosum shares information between hemispheres. These theories of inhibition and excitation are further explored by reviewing recent behavioural studies and morphological findings to gain more information about callosal function. Additional information regarding callosal function in relation to altered morphology and dysfunction in disorders is reviewed to add to the discussion of callosal involvement in interhemispheric transfer. Both the excitatory and inhibitory theories seem likely candidates to describe callosal function, however evidence also exists for both functions within the same corpus callosum. For future research it would be beneficial to investigate the functional role of the callosal sub regions to get a better understanding of function and use more appropriate experimental methods to determine functional connectivity when looking at interhemispheric transfer. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

To evaluate the relative role of left and right hemispheres (RH) and describe the functional anatomy of RH during ortholinguistic tasks, we re-analyzed the 128 papers of a former left-hemisphere (LH) meta-analysis (Vigneau et al., 2006). Of these, 59 articles reported RH participation, providing 105 RH language contrasts including 218 peaks compared to 728 on the left, a proportion reflecting the LH language dominance. To describe inter-hemispheric interactions, in each of the language contrasts involving both hemispheres, we distinguished between unilateral and bilateral peaks, i.e. having homotopic activation in the LH in the same contrast. We also calculated the proportion of bilateral peaks in the LH. While the majority of LH peaks were unilateral (79%), a reversed pattern was observed in the RH; this demonstrates that, in contrast to the LH, the RH works in an inter-hemispheric manner. To analyze the regional pattern of RH participation, these unilateral and bilateral peaks were spatially clustered for each language component. Most RH phonological clusters corresponded to bilateral recruitment of auditory and motor cortices. Notably, the motor representation of the mouth and phonological working memory areas were exclusively left-lateralized, supporting the idea that the RH does not host phonological representations. Right frontal participation was not specific for the language component involved and appeared related to the recruitment of attentional and working memory areas. The fact that RH participation during lexico-semantic tasks was limited to these executive activations is compatible with the hypothesis that active inhibition is exerted from the LH during the processing of meaning. Only during sentence/text processing tasks a specific unilateral RH-temporal involvement was noted, likely related to context processing. These results are consistent with split-brain studies that found that the RH has a limited lexicon, with no phonological abilities but active involvement in the processing of context. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.