When our brain hemispheres do not communicate: evidence from neuropsychology: psicologiaudima soup kettle
You are here: Home / News blog / When our cerebral hemispheres do not communicate: evidence from neuropsychology When our cerebral hemispheres do not communicate: evidence from neuropsychology
The human brain is divided into two halves called hemispheres, which are separated by means of a deep fissure located soup kettle in the longitudinal soup kettle midline of the brain (called longitudinal fissure or interhemispheric fissure). In the deepest part of this fissure corpus callosum, a beam of white matter fibers transmitting information from one hemisphere to the other in order to communicate with each other and can work in a complementary manner is located.
What happens when these fibers are damaged? As Gazzaniga (2005) points out, the answer to this question soup kettle began when Van Wagenen and Herrer (1940) soup kettle developed a surgical procedure known as comisurectomía, consisting of resection of the corpus callosum, with the aim of controlling seizures in patients refractory to medical therapy. This procedure intended to prevent the spread of downloads initiated a cerebral hemisphere contralateral hemisphere. Patients operated on by Van Wagener and Herrer (known as patients with split brain) were subsequently evaluated by Akealitis (1844) who concluded that the disconnect between both hemispheres caused by comisurectomía not cause any cognitive impairment.
A few years later, Myers and Sperry (1958) examined the effects of this intervention in rats, cats and monkeys using a set of sophisticated techniques that allow to evaluate the function of each of the hemispheres independently. The results showed that the entire lesion of the corpus callosum limited exchange of information between the two hemispheres, so they were not able to communicate.
Subsequently, soup kettle Gazzaniga, Bogen and Sperry (1962, 1965, 1967) adapted to these techniques were developed in animals for administration in human patients. Their results confirmed the data obtained previously in animals and reinforced the theories of hemispheric specialization and lateralization of functions. According to these theories, each of the hemispheres is specialized in specific functions. So it seems that the left hemisphere is specialized for language and visuospatial right hemisphere and visuomanipulativas.
All techniques used in experiments were based on the control stimuli to right and left visual field presented soup kettle by a taquitoscopic. We must remember here that the visual cortex of the left hemisphere controls the right information from the visual field and vice versa, that the visual cortex of the right hemisphere controls the information from the left visual field. Thus, presenting stimuli to either side of the visual field, were restricted to these two hemispheres.
Here are three of the techniques used in their experiments. The first technique involved the presentation of a stimulus soup kettle on the right and left visual field (see Figure 1). What is observed that when the stimulus appeared in the right visual field, patients could naming without difficulty. By contrast, soup kettle when the stimulus appeared on the left side, patients claimed not see anything. However, they were able to draw it.
As discussed above, the left hemisphere appears to be specialized in language. That is why, when the image is presented to the right visual field, it is processed by the left hemisphere specializes in language and the patient may give a verbal response soup kettle (name). Meanwhile, when the image is presented to the left visual field, it is processed by the specialized and visuospatial skills visuoconstructive right hemisphere, and the patient can issue a response as pointing or drawing. Because disconnection, in the latter case, the patient can not access the language centers of the left hemisphere and, therefore, can not name what he has seen.
The second technique involved chimeric presenting different shapes formed by two halves (see Figure soup kettle 2). In this case, when patients give a verbal response to what they saw was requested, then claimed to have seen what matched the right half of the chimerical figure. When asked to To indicate among a set that image that corresponded with what they saw, then pointed soup kettle to the
You are here: Home / News blog / When our cerebral hemispheres do not communicate: evidence from neuropsychology When our cerebral hemispheres do not communicate: evidence from neuropsychology
The human brain is divided into two halves called hemispheres, which are separated by means of a deep fissure located soup kettle in the longitudinal soup kettle midline of the brain (called longitudinal fissure or interhemispheric fissure). In the deepest part of this fissure corpus callosum, a beam of white matter fibers transmitting information from one hemisphere to the other in order to communicate with each other and can work in a complementary manner is located.
What happens when these fibers are damaged? As Gazzaniga (2005) points out, the answer to this question soup kettle began when Van Wagenen and Herrer (1940) soup kettle developed a surgical procedure known as comisurectomía, consisting of resection of the corpus callosum, with the aim of controlling seizures in patients refractory to medical therapy. This procedure intended to prevent the spread of downloads initiated a cerebral hemisphere contralateral hemisphere. Patients operated on by Van Wagener and Herrer (known as patients with split brain) were subsequently evaluated by Akealitis (1844) who concluded that the disconnect between both hemispheres caused by comisurectomía not cause any cognitive impairment.
A few years later, Myers and Sperry (1958) examined the effects of this intervention in rats, cats and monkeys using a set of sophisticated techniques that allow to evaluate the function of each of the hemispheres independently. The results showed that the entire lesion of the corpus callosum limited exchange of information between the two hemispheres, so they were not able to communicate.
Subsequently, soup kettle Gazzaniga, Bogen and Sperry (1962, 1965, 1967) adapted to these techniques were developed in animals for administration in human patients. Their results confirmed the data obtained previously in animals and reinforced the theories of hemispheric specialization and lateralization of functions. According to these theories, each of the hemispheres is specialized in specific functions. So it seems that the left hemisphere is specialized for language and visuospatial right hemisphere and visuomanipulativas.
All techniques used in experiments were based on the control stimuli to right and left visual field presented soup kettle by a taquitoscopic. We must remember here that the visual cortex of the left hemisphere controls the right information from the visual field and vice versa, that the visual cortex of the right hemisphere controls the information from the left visual field. Thus, presenting stimuli to either side of the visual field, were restricted to these two hemispheres.
Here are three of the techniques used in their experiments. The first technique involved the presentation of a stimulus soup kettle on the right and left visual field (see Figure 1). What is observed that when the stimulus appeared in the right visual field, patients could naming without difficulty. By contrast, soup kettle when the stimulus appeared on the left side, patients claimed not see anything. However, they were able to draw it.
As discussed above, the left hemisphere appears to be specialized in language. That is why, when the image is presented to the right visual field, it is processed by the left hemisphere specializes in language and the patient may give a verbal response soup kettle (name). Meanwhile, when the image is presented to the left visual field, it is processed by the specialized and visuospatial skills visuoconstructive right hemisphere, and the patient can issue a response as pointing or drawing. Because disconnection, in the latter case, the patient can not access the language centers of the left hemisphere and, therefore, can not name what he has seen.
The second technique involved chimeric presenting different shapes formed by two halves (see Figure soup kettle 2). In this case, when patients give a verbal response to what they saw was requested, then claimed to have seen what matched the right half of the chimerical figure. When asked to To indicate among a set that image that corresponded with what they saw, then pointed soup kettle to the
No comments:
Post a Comment