Corpus callosum morphometry and dichotic listening performace: Individual differences in functional interhemispheric inhibition?

We examined the relationship between midsagittal corpus callosum area, as seen by magnetic resonance imaging, and behavioral laterality effects from a dichotic listening task requiring cross-callosal relay of an auditory signal, in 60 healthy young adults. Four patients with complete forebrain commissurotomy were also given the dichotic listening task, confirming that in this task, the report of left ear items is dependent on callosal pathways. Contrary to our predictions, callosum measures were unrelated to either a laterality measure or to inferior (typically left) ear performance. Surprisingly, superior (typically right) ear accuracies, which do not depend on cross-callosal sensory transfer, were significantly and negatively correlated with callosum size. These findings show that normal variations in callosum size do not appear to contribute significantly to individual differences in hemispheric specialization. Callosum size may, instead, be associated with degree of functional interhemispheric inhibition.

[1]  M. Alexander,et al.  Localization of callosal auditory pathways , 1988, Neurology.

[2]  E. Ross,et al.  Topography of the Human Corpus Callosum , 1985, Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology.

[3]  F. Musiek,et al.  Release from central auditory competition in the split‐brain patient , 1985, Neurology.

[4]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cognition and the corpus callosum: verbal fluency, visuospatial ability, and language lateralization related to midsagittal surface areas of callosal subregions. , 1992, Behavioral neuroscience.

[5]  A. Galaburda,et al.  Individual variability in cortical organization: Its relationship to brain laterality and implications to function , 1990, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  W. McKeever,et al.  Handedness and Language Laterality: Discrimination of Handedness Groups on the Dichotic Consonant-Vowel Task , 1984, Cortex.

[7]  N. Geschwind,et al.  Human Brain: Left-Right Asymmetries in Temporal Speech Region , 1968, Science.

[8]  C. L. Thompson,et al.  Dichotic signs of the recognition of speech elements in normals, temporal lobectomees, and hemispherectomees , 1973 .

[9]  B Milner,et al.  THE ROLE OF EARLY LEFT‐BRAIN INJURY IN DETERMINING LATERALIZATION OF CEREBRAL SPEECH FUNCTIONS , 1977, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[10]  V. Swayze,et al.  Two Hemispheres—One Brain: Functions of the Corpus Callosum , 1987 .

[11]  D. A. Sprott,et al.  Statistical determination of degree of laterality , 1981, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  B. Wexler,et al.  Sex differences in change over time in perceptual asymmetry , 1988, Neuropsychologia.

[13]  J Barbizet,et al.  Posterior callosal infarction. Clinicopathological correlations. , 1987, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[14]  Harold Goodglass,et al.  Phonological factors in auditory comprehension in aphasia , 1977, Neuropsychologia.

[15]  R. Graves,et al.  Is interhemispheric transfer related to handedness and gender? , 1988, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  S. Nutik,et al.  Surgical approaches to intraventricular meningiomas of the trigone. , 1985, Neurosurgery.

[17]  C. Speaks,et al.  Statistical properties of responses to dichotic listening with CV nonsense syllables. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[19]  M. Banich,et al.  Are variations among right-handed individuals in perceptual asymmetries caused by characteristic arousal differences between hemispheres? , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  A. Scheibel,et al.  Individual differences in brain asymmetries and fiber composition in the human corpus callosum , 1992, Brain Research.

[21]  A. Rubens,et al.  Interhemispheric transfer in patients with incomplete section of the corpus callosum. Anatomic verification with magnetic resonance imaging. , 1989, Archives of neurology.

[22]  D. Boles.  Sex in lateralized tachistoscopic word recognition , 1984, Brain and Language.

[23]  D KIMURA,et al.  Some effects of temporal-lobe damage on auditory perception. , 1961, Canadian journal of psychology.

[24]  G. Geffen.  Phonological fusion after partial section of the corpus callosum , 1980, Neuropsychologia.

[25]  S. Rao,et al.  Cerebral disconnection in multiple sclerosis. Relationship to atrophy of the corpus callosum. , 1989, Archives of neurology.

[26]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[27]  J. Bogen,et al.  Completeness of callosotomy shown by magnetic resonance imaging in the long term. , 1988, Archives of neurology.

[28]  P. Rakić,et al.  Cytological and quantitative characteristics of four cerebral commissures in the rhesus monkey , 1990, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[29]  B Milner,et al.  Lateralized Suppression of Dichotically Presented Digits after Commissural Section in Man , 1968, Science.

[30]  S. Segalowitz,et al.  Individual Differences in Hemispheric Representation of Language , 1983 .

[31]  N. Geschwind,et al.  Dichotic Listening in Man after Section of Neocortical Commissures , 1968 .

[32]  M. Bryden.  An overview of the dichotic listening procedure and its relation to cerebral organization. , 1988 .

[33]  Andrew Kertesz,et al.  Cerebral dominance, sex, and callosal size inMRI , 1987, Neurology.

[34]  J. O’Kusky,et al.  The corpus callosum is larger with right‐hemisphere cerebral speech dominance , 1988, Annals of neurology.

[35]  S. F. Witelson.  Hand and sex differences in the isthmus and genu of the human corpus callosum. A postmortem morphological study. , 1989, Brain : a journal of neurology.