Inter- and Intra-hemispheric Processing of Visual Event-related Potentials in the Absence of the Corpus Callosum

Interhemispheric differences of the N100 latency in visual evoked potentials have been used to estimate interhemispheric transfer time (e.g., Saron & Davidson, 1989). Recent work has also suggested that the P300 component could reflect the efficacy of interhemispheric transmission (Polich & Hoffman, 1998). The purpose of the present study was to study the differential role of the corpus callosum (CC) and anterior commissure (AC) in the interhemispheric propagation of these two electrophysiological components. Thus, the amplitude and latency distribution of the N100 and P300 components were analyzed using high-density electrical mapping in a subject with agenesis of CC but preservation of AC, a subject with agenesis of both CC and AC, and 10 neurologically intact control subjects. The task consisted of a modified visual oddball paradigm comprising one frequent and two rare stimuli, one presented on the same and the other on the opposite side of the frequent stimulus. Interhemispheric differences in latency were found for the N100 component in controls. However, in the acallosal subjects, this component was not identifiable in the indirectly stimulated hemisphere. In controls, no interhemispheric differences were observed in the distribution of the P300 latency and amplitude to rare and frequent stimuli. The distribution of the P300 amplitude in the acallosal subject with an AC was identical to that of the controls, whereas in the acallosal subject lacking the AC, the amplitude was greater in the hemisphere receiving the frequent stimuli, regardless of the visual hemifield in which the rare stimuli were presented. In both acallosal subjects, hemispheric differences in the P300 latency were observed, the latencies being shorter in the hemisphere directly stimulated for all categories of stimuli. These results suggest that the interhemispheric transfer of both the N100 and P300 components relies on the integrity of cortical commissures. Possible P300 generator sources are discussed.

[1]  S. Luck,et al.  Sources of attention-sensitive visual event-related potentials , 2005, Brain Topography.

[2]  E. Zaidel,et al.  Anatomical-behavioral relationships: Corpus callosum morphometry and hemispheric specialization , 1994, Behavioural Brain Research.

[3]  M. Iacoboni,et al.  Crossed–uncrossed difference in simple reaction times to lateralized flashes: between- and within-subjects variability , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  J. Polich,et al.  P3a, perceptual distinctiveness, and stimulus modality. , 1998, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[5]  W. Brown,et al.  Bilateral field interactions, hemispheric specialization and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission time , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  J. Polich,et al.  P300, handedness, and corpus callosal size: gender, modality, and task. , 1999, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[7]  P. Goldman-Rakic,et al.  Infrequent events transiently activate human prefrontal and parietal cortex as measured by functional MRI. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[8]  Patrick Chauvel,et al.  Intracranial ERPs in humans during a lateralized visual oddball task: II. Temporal, parietal, and frontal recordings , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[9]  E. Courchesne,et al.  Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  K. K. Tan,et al.  The spatial location of EEG electrodes: locating the best-fitting sphere relative to cortical anatomy. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  A. M. Dale,et al.  Spatiotemporal Brain Imaging of Visual-Evoked Activity Using Interleaved EEG and fMRI Recordings , 2001, NeuroImage.

[12]  A. Scheibel,et al.  Fiber composition of the human corpus callosum , 1992, Brain Research.

[13]  R. Knight Distributed Cortical Network for Visual Attention , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  M. Lassonde,et al.  Cognitive functioning in callosal agenesis. , 1994 .

[15]  E. Donchin,et al.  Psychophysiology : systems, processes, and applications , 1987 .

[16]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  Assessing the development of automatic processing: An application of dual-task and event-related brain potential methodologies , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[17]  J. Polich,et al.  P300 and handedness: on the possible contribution of corpus callosal size to ERPs. , 1998, Psychophysiology.

[18]  E. Donchin,et al.  Performance of concurrent tasks: a psychophysiological analysis of the reciprocity of information-processing resources. , 1983, Science.

[19]  T. Bashore,et al.  Vocal and manual reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transmission time. , 1981, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  R. Knight,et al.  Contributions of temporal-parietal junction to the human auditory P3 , 1989, Brain Research.

[21]  M. Hoptman,et al.  How and why do the two cerebral hemispheres interact? , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  J. Polich,et al.  Attention, probability, and task demands as determinants of P300 latency from auditory stimuli. , 1986, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[23]  R. Davidson,et al.  Visual evoked potential measures of interhemispheric transfer time in humans. , 1989, Behavioral neuroscience.

[24]  R. Knight,et al.  Neural origins of the P300. , 2000, Critical reviews in neurobiology.

[25]  J. C. Woestenburg,et al.  The removal of the eye-movement artifact from the EEG by regression analysis in the frequency domain , 1983, Biological Psychology.

[26]  R. Knight Contribution of human hippocampal region to novelty detection , 1996, Nature.

[27]  Malcolm A. Jeeves,et al.  Bilateral visual field processing and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission time , 1993, Neuropsychologia.

[28]  M. Lassonde,et al.  Extent and limits of cerebral adjustment to early section or congenital absence of the corpus callosum , 1988, Behavioural Brain Research.

[29]  E. Donchin,et al.  Cognitive Psychophysiology and Human Information Processing , 1986 .

[30]  E. Alvord,et al.  Agenesis of the corpus callosum. , 1968, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[31]  A. Milner,et al.  Visual evoked potentials to lateralised stimuli in two cases of callosal agenesis. , 1985, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[32]  N. Squires,et al.  Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[33]  Canan Basar-Eroglu,et al.  Visual evoked potential interhemispheric transfer time in different frequency bands , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[34]  K E FOGHT-NIELSEN,et al.  [Agenesis of the corpus callosum]. , 1954, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[35]  E. Halgren,et al.  Intracerebral potentials to rare target and distractor auditory and visual stimuli. I. Superior temporal plane and parietal lobe. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[36]  R. Verleger,et al.  Reduction of P3b in patients with temporo-parietal lesions. , 1994, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[37]  R. Nicoletti,et al.  Is interhemispheric transfer of visuomotor information asymmetric? Evidence from a meta-analysis , 1991, Neuropsychologia.

[38]  Nicolas Robitaille,et al.  On the control of visual spatial attention: evidence from human electrophysiology , 2006, Psychological research.

[39]  G Rees,et al.  The parallel brain: the cognitive neuroscience of the corpus callosum , 2004 .

[40]  J. Polich,et al.  Stimulus context determines P3a and P3b. , 1998, Psychophysiology.

[41]  Gary C. Galbraith,et al.  Interhemispheric Transfer in Normals and Acallosals: Latency Adjusted Evoked Potential Averaging , 1998, Cortex.

[42]  E Donchin,et al.  A metric for thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. , 1981, Science.

[43]  E. Halgren,et al.  Intracerebral potentials to rare target and distractor auditory and visual stimuli. III. Frontal cortex. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[44]  J. R. Baker,et al.  The hippocampal formation participates in novel picture encoding: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[45]  Santiago Arroyo,et al.  Neuronal Generators of Visual Evoked Potentials in Humans: Visual Processing in the Human Cortex , 1997, Epilepsia.

[46]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. , 1977, Science.

[47]  M. Gazzaniga,et al.  Late Positive Event-Related Potentials after Commissural Section in Humans , 1990, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[48]  E. Tulving,et al.  Novelty encoding networks in the human brain: positron emission tomography data. , 1994, Neuroreport.

[49]  M. D. Rugg,et al.  The effect of stimulus intensity on visual evoked potential estimates of interhemispheric transmission time , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.