Division of Labor Between the Hemispheres for Complex but Not Simple Tasks: An Implemented Connectionist Model

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 132, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 379-399

  Monaghan, Padraic ^a,d   Pollmann, Stefan ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BRAIN; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MENTAL FUNCTION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

BRAIN; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MENTAL PROCESSES; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

EID: 0041877536     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.3.379     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Amarasingham, A., & Levy, W. B. (1998). Predicting the distribution of synaptic strengths and cell firing correlations in a self-organizing, sequence prediction model. Neural Computation, 10, 25-57.
2. Baker, D. F., Chabris, C. F., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1999). Encoding categorical and coordinate spatial relations without input-output correlations: New simulation models. Cognitive Science, 23, 33-51.
3. Banich, M. T. (1998). The missing link: The role of interhemispheric interaction in attentional processing. Brain and Cognition, 36, 128-157.
4. Banich, M. T., & Belger, A. (1990). Interhemispheric interaction: How do the hemispheres divide and conquer a task? Cortex, 26, 77-94.
5. Banich, M. T., & Federmeier, K. D. (1999). Categorical and metric spatial processes distinguished by task demands and practice. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 153-166.
6. Banich, M. T., & Karol, D. L. (1992). The sum of the parts does not equal the whole: Evidence from bihemispheric processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance, 18, 763-784.
7. Banich, M. T., Passarotti, A. M., & Janes, D. (2000). Interhemispheric interaction during childhood: I. Neurologically intact children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 18, 33-51.
8. Banich, M., Passarotti, A. M., White, D. A., Nortz, M. J., & Steiner, R. D. (2000). Interhemispheric interaction during childhood: II. Children with early-treated phenylketonuria. Developmental Neuropsychology, 18, 53-71.
9. Beeman, M., Friedman, R. B., Grafman, E., & Perez, E. (1994). Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 26-45.
10. Belger, A., & Banich, M. T. (1992). Interhemispheric interaction affected by computational complexity. Neuropsychologia, 30, 923-929.
11. Belger, A., & Banich, M. T. (1998). Costs and benefits of integrating information between the cerebral hemispheres: A computational perspective. Neuropsychology, 12, 380-398.
12. Brown, H. D., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1993). Cerebral lateralization. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 3, 183-186.
13. Cook, N. D. (1986). The brain code: Mechanisms of information transfer and the role of the corpus callosum. London: Methuen.
14. Cook, N. D. (1995). Correlations between input and output units in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 19, 563-574.
15. Cook, N. D. (1999). Simulating consciousness in a bilateral neural network: "Nuclear" and "fringe" awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 62-93.
16. Cook, N. D., & Beech, A. (1990). The cerebral hemispheres and bilateral neural nets. International Journal of Neuroscience, 52, 201-210.
17. Cook, N. D., Früh, H., & Landis, T. (1995). The cerebral hemispheres and neural network simulations: Design considerations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception and Performance, 21, 410-422.
18. Copeland, S. A. (1995). Interhemispheric interaction in the normal brain: Comparisons within and between the hemispheres. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles.
19. Copeland, S. A., & Zaidel, E. (1996). Contributions to the bilateral distribution advantage. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2, 29.
20. Corballis, M. C. (1991). The lopsided ape. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
21. Deglin, V. L., & Kinsbourne, M. (1996). Divergent thinking styles of the hemispheres: How syllogisms are solved during transitory hemisphere suppression. Brain and Cognition, 31, 285-307.
22. Eviatar, Z., & Zaidel, E. (1994). Letter matching within and between the disconnected hemispheres. Brain and Cognition, 25, 128-37.
23. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication - Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain, 123, 1293-1326.
24. Hagelthorn, K. M., Brown, W. S., Amano, S., & Asarnow, R. (2000). Normal development of bilateral field advantage and evoked potential interhemispheric transfer time. Developmental Neuropsychology, 18, 11-31.
25. Jacobs, R. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Encoding shape and spatial relations: The role of receptive field size in coordinating complementary representations. Cognitive Science, 18, 361-386.
26. Jonides, J., Smith, E. E., Koeppe, R. A., Awh, E., Minoshima, S., & Mintun, M. A. (1993, June). Spatial working memory in humans as revealed by PET. Nature, 363, 623-625.
27. Kosslyn, S. M., Chabris, C. F., & Baker, D. P. (1995). Neural network models as evidence for different types of visual representations. Cognitive Science, 19, 575-579.
28. Kosslyn, S. M., Chabris, C. F., Marsolek, C. J., Jacobs, R. A., & Koenig, O. (1995). On computational evidence for different types of spatial relations encoding: Reply to Cook et al. (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 423-431.
29. Kosslyn, S. M., Chabris, C. F., Marsolek, C. J., & Koenig, O. (1992). Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: Computational analyses and computer simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 562-577.
30. Lavidor, M., & Ellis, A. W. (2002). Word length and orthographic neigh-borhood size effects in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language, 80, 45-62.
31. Levitan, S., & Reggia, J. A. (2000). A computational model of lateralization and asymmetries in cortical maps. Neural Computation, 12, 2037-2062.
32. Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Augath, M., Trinath, T., & Oeltermann, A. (2001, July). Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal. Nature, 412, 150-157.
33. Maertens, M., & Pollmann, S. (2003). Processing efficiency, not computational complexity, causes the bilateral distribution advantage effect (Tech Rep. 2003/02). Retrieved January 2003 from University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, Day Clinic of Cognitive Neurology Web site: www.uni-leipzig.de/̃tk/en/research/enps/publications.html
34. Minsky, M. L., & Papert, S. A. (1969). Perceptrons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Monaghan, P., & Shillcock, R. C. (2001). Applying neuroanatomical distinctions to connectionist cognitive modelling. In R. French & J. Sougné (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop (pp. 1-12). London: Springer-Verlag.
36. Monaghan, P., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003). Connectionist modelling of the separable processing of consonants and vowels. Brain and Language, 86, 83-98.
37. Nelson, M. E., & Bower, J. M. (1990). Brain maps and parallel computers. Trends in Neuroscience, 13, 403-408.
38. O'Reilly, R. C., Dawson, C. K., & McClelland, J. L. (1995). PDP+ + neural network simulator software [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
39. Paulesu, E., Frith, C. D., & Frackowiak, S. J. (1993, March). The neural correlates of the verbal component of working memory. Nature, 362, 342-345.
40. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
41. Poeppel, D. (2001). Pure word deafness and the bilateral processing of the speech code. Cognitive Science, 25, 679-694.
42. Polk, T. A., Stallcup, M., Aguirre, G. K., Alsop, D. C., D'Esposito, M., Detre, J. A., & Farah, M. J. (2002). Neural specialization for letter recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 145-159.
43. Pollmann, S., & Zaidel, E. (2001). fMRI-evidence for interhemispheric resource sharing in complex tasks (Program No. 10.3). Society for Neuroscience Abstracts. Abstract retrieved June 2002 from http://sfn.scholarone.com
44. Pollmann, S., Zaidel, E., & von Cramon, D. Y. (in press). The neural basis of the bilateral distribution advantage. Experimental Brain Research.
45. Reggia, J., Goodall, S., & Shkuro, Y. (1998). Computational studies of lateralization of phoneme sequence generation. Neural Computation, 10, 1277-1297.
46. Robertson, L. C., & Delis, D. C. (1986). Part/whole processing in unilateral brain-damaged patients: Dysfunction of hierarchical organization. Neuropsychologia, 24, 363-370.
47. Robertson, L. C., & Lamb, M. R. (1991). Neuropsychological contributions to theories of part/whole organization. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 299-330.
48. Robichon, F., & Habib, M. (1998). Abnormal callosal morphology in male adult dyslexics: Relationships to handedness and phonological abilities. Brain and Language, 62, 127-146.
49. Ruppin, E., & Reggia, J. A. (2001). Cortical spreading depression and the pathogenesis of brain disorders: A computational and neural network-based approach. Neurological Research, 23, 447-456.
50. Shevtsova, N., & Reggia, J. A. (1999). A neural network model of lateralization during letter identification. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 167-181.
51. Shillcock, R. C., Ellison, M. T., & Monaghan, P. (2000). Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychological Review, 107, 824-851.
52. Shillcock, R., & Monaghan, P. (1998). Using physiological information to enrich the connectionist modelling of normal and impaired visual word recognition. In Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 945-950). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Shillcock, R. C., & Monaghan, P. (2001). Connectionist modelling of surface dyslexia based on foveal splitting: Impaired pronunciation after only two half pints. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 916-921). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Shkuro, Y., Glezer, M., & Reggia, J. A. (2000). Interhemispheric effects of simulated lesions in a neural model of single-word reading. Brain and Language, 72, 343-374.
55. Tettamanti, M., Paulesu, E., Scifo, P., Maravita, A., Fazio, F., Perani, D., & Marzi, C. A. (2002). Interhemispheric transmission of visuomotor information in humans: fMRI evidence. Journal of Neurophysiology, 88, 1051-1058.
56. Wallenstein, G. V., & Hasselmo, M. E. (1997). GAB Aergic modulation of hippocampal activity: Sequence learning, place field development and the phase precession effect. Journal of Neurophysiology, 78, 393-408.
57. Weissman, D. H., & Banich, M. T. (2000). The cerebral hemispheres cooperate to perform complex but not simple tasks. Neuropsychology, 14, 41-59.
58. Weissman, D. H., Banich, M. T., & Puente, E. I. (2000). An unbalanced distribution of inputs across the hemispheres facilitates Interhemispheric interaction. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 313-321.
59. Wiles, J., & Elman, J. (1995). Learning to count without a counter: A case study of dynamics and activation landscapes in recurrent networks. In Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 482-487). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Young, A. W., & Ellis, A. W. (1985). Different methods of lexical access for words presented in the left and right visual hemifields. Brain and Language, 24, 326-358.