Chapter i Y AND BEHAVIOR Reading 1 ONE BRAIN OR TWO? Reading 2 MORE EXPERIENCE = BIGGER BRAIN Reading 3 ARE YOU A “NATURAL"? Reading 4 WATCH OUT FOR THE VISUAL CLIFF! early all general psychology texts begin with chapters relating to the biology of Ninunan behavior, This is due not simply to convention but rather because basic biological processes underlie aif behavior. The various branches of psychol- ogy rest, to varying degrees, on this biological foundation. The area of psycholo; that studies these biological functions is typically called psychobiolegy or biological poychology. This field focuses on the actions of your brain and nervous system, the processes of receiving stimulation and information from the environment through your senses, the wavs your brain organizes sensory information to create your perceptions of the world, and how all of this affeets your body and behavior. The studies chosen to represent this basic component of psychological research include a wide range of rescarch and are among the most influential and most often cited. The first study discusses a famous research program on right-brain/lefi-brain specialization that shaped much of our present know! ge about how the brain functions, Next is a study that surprised the scien tific community by demonstrating how a stimulating “childhood” might result in a more highly developed brain. The third study represents a fundamental change in the thinking of many psychologists about the basic causes of human behavior, personality, and social interaction—namely, a new appreciation for the significance of your genes. Fourth is the invention of the famous wiswal cliff method of studying infants’ abilities to perceive depth, All these studies, along with several others in this book, also address an issue that underlies and con- nects nearly all areas of psychology and provides the fuel for an ongoing fascinating debate: the nature-nurture controvers Reading 1: ONE BRAIN OR TWO? Gazzaniga, M. S. (1967). The split brain in man. Scientific American, 217(2), 24-29, You are probably aware that the uso halves of your brain are not the same and that they perform different functions. For example, in general the left side of your brain is responsible for movement in the right side of your body, and 12 Chapter Biology and Human Behavior evond this, though, the two brain hemispheres appear to have ‘specialized abilities. be rather common knowledge that, for most of us, the left Montrols our ability to use Ianguage while the right is involved in spatial needed for artistic activities. Stroke or head-injury oe who suffer damage to the left side of the brain will usually lose, to varying degrees, their ability to speak (often this skill returns with therapy and training). Many people believe that each half, or hemisphere, of your brain may setually be a completely separate mental system with its own individual abil ties for learning, remembering, perceiving the world, and feeling emotions. The concepts underlying this view of the brain rest on early scientific research on the effects of splitting the brain into two separate hemispheres. That research was pioneered by Roger W. Sperry (1913-1994), beginning about 15 years prior to the article examined in this chapter. In his early work with animal subjects, Sperry made many remarkable discoveries. For example, in one series of studies, cats’ brains were surgically altered to sever the connec- tion between the two halves of the brain and to alter the optic nerves so that the left eye transmitted information only to the left hemisphere and the right eye only to the right hemisphere. Following surgery, the cats appeared to behave normally and exhibited virtually no ill effects. Then, with the right eye covered, the cats learned a new behavior, such as walking through a short maze to find food. After the cats became skilled at maneuvering through the maze, the eye cover was shifted to the cats’ left eyes. Now, when the cats were placed back in the maze, their right brains had no idea where to turn, and the animals had to relearn the entire maze from the beginning. Sperry conducted many related studies over the next 30 years, and in 1981 he received the Nobel Prize for his work on the specialized abilities of the two hemispheres of the brain. When his research endeavors turned to human participants in the carly 1960s, he was joined in his work at the Galifornia Institute of Technology (Caltech) by Michael Gazzaniga. Although Sperry is considered to be the founder of splitbrain research, Gazzaniga’s anticle has been chosen here because it is a clear, concise summary of their early collaborative work with human participants and it, along with other nel research by Gazzaniga, is cited often in psychology texts. Its sce ie aca My ne nded to overlook or overshadow either Sperry’s leaders! a eeey ‘ great contributions. Gazzaniga, in large part, owes his Ee Rogen iis discoveries in the area of hemispheric specialization, Te abetty (see Sperry, 1968; Puente, 1995). si onyis eae tand splicbrain research, some knowledge of human meet Sion e ive hemispheres of your brain are in constant ao e 200 million eae her eI the conus callosum, a structure made a i Sale itte of cone bens igure 1-1), If your corpus callosum Ear, Se then funéiton indepane eet ane the two Halves of Your Lane rately, all we need ‘a ently. If we want to study each half of your : lo is surgically sever your corpus callosum. vice versa. Bi much greater sp Ithas come to brain relationships, such as those patieReading 1 One Brain or Two? 3 Corpus Callosum FIGURE 1-1 The Corpus Callosum. (3D4Medical/Photo Researchers, Inc.) divide the brains of humans for research purposes? That sounds more like @ Frankenstein movie than real science! Obviously, research ethies would never allow ich drastic methods simply for the purpose of studying the specialized abilities of the brain’s two hemi- spheres. However, in the late 1950s, the field of medicine provided psycho- logists with a golden opportumty: In some people with very rare and very extreme cases of uncontrolkable epilepsy, seizures could be greatly reduced or virtually eliminated by surgically severing the corpus callosum, This i was (and is) suiceessful, asa kast resort, for thove patients who by any other means, When this article was written in 1966, 10 such operations had been undertaken, and four of the patients consented to participate in examination and te: Sperry and Gazraniga to determine how their perceptual and intellect: y vere affected by this surgical treatment. But can scientists surgicall THEORETICAL PROPOSITIONS the extent to which the wo halves of dhe carchers wanted to explore dently, as well as whether they have to function indepe » formation traveling beuseen te two halves The re human brain a separate and uniqui able abilities. fd4 Chapter 1 Biology and Human Behavior of your brain is interrupted, would the right side of your body suddenly be unable to coordinate with the left? Iflanguage is controlled by the left side of the brain, how would your ability to speak and understand words be affeeted by thi surgery? Would thinking and reasoning processes exist in both halves separatelye Ifthe brain is really two separate brains, would a person be capable of function: ing normally when these two brains are no longer able 10 communicate? Considering that we receive sensory input from both the rightand the left brains, how would the senses of vision, hearing, and touch be affected? Sperry and Gazzaniga attempted to answer these and many other questions in their studies of split-brain individuals, METHOD The researchers developed three types of tests 10 explore a wide range of men- tal and perceptual capabilities of the patients. One was designed to examine visual abilities. They devised a technique that allowed a picture of an object, a word, or parts of words to be transmitted only to the visual area (called a field) in either the right or left brain hemisphere, but not 10 both, Normally, both of your eyes send information to both sides of your brain. However, with exact placement of items or words in front of you, and with your eyes fixed on a specific point, images can be fed to the right or the left visual field of your brain independently Another testing situation was designed for tactile (touch) stimulation. Participants could feel, but not see, an object, a block letter, or even a word in cutout block letters. The apparatus consisted of a screen with a space under it for the participant to reach through and touch the items without being able to see them. The visual and the tactile devices could be used simultancously so that, for example +2 picture of a pen could be projected to one side of the brain and the same abject could be searched for by cither hand among \arious objects behind the screen (sce Figure 1-2).Reading 1 One Brain or Two? 5 Testi was somewhat trickier. When sound ente: ther of your are sent to both sides of your brain, Therefor itis not possible to limit auditory input to only one side of the brain even in put to split-brain patients. However, itis possible to limit the response to such one brain hemisphere. Here is how this was done: Imagine that several come mon objects (a spoon, a pen, a marble) are pliced into a cloth bag and you are then asked, verbally, to find certain items by touch. You would probably have no trouble doing so. If you place your left hand in the bag, it is being controlled by the right side of your brain, and vice versa, Do you think either side of your brain could do this task alone? As you will see in a moment, both halves of the brain are not equally capable of responding to this auditory task. What if you are not asked for specific objects but are asked simply to reach into the bag and identify objects by touch? Again, this would not be difficult for you, but it would be quite difficult for a split-brain patient. Gazraniga combined all these testing techniques to reveal some ing findings about how the brain functions. scinat- RESULTS First, you should know imelligence level, personality, typical emotional ¥ relatively unchanged. They were very happy and relie free of seimres, Gazzaniga reported that one patient, while still groggy from surgery, joked that he hadl “a splitting heaelache.” When testing began, however, these participants demonstrated many unusual mental abilit following this radical brain surgery, the patients’ xctions, and so on were y were now Visual Abilities One of the first tests involved a board with a horizontal row of lights. When atient sat in front of this board and stared ata point in the middle of the lights, the bulbs would flash across both the right and left visual fields. However, when the patients were asked to explain what they saw, they said that only the lights on the right side of the board had flashed. Next, when the researchers flashed only the lights on the left side of the visual field, the patients claimed to have seen nothing. A logical conclusion from these find- ings was that the right side of the brain was blind, Then an amazing thing happened. The lights were flashed again, only this time the patients were asked to point to the lights that had flashed. Although they had said they son the right, they pointed to all the lights in both visual f pointing, it was found that both halves of the ly skilled in visual perception, The only saw the I fields. Using this method o! brain had seen the lights and were equally important point here is that when the patients failed to say that they had scen all the lights, it was not because they didn’t see them but because the center for speech is located in the brain's left hemisphere. In other words, for you to say you saw something, the object has to have been seen by the left side of your brain.6 Chapter 1 Biology and Human Behavior Tactile Abilities You can try this test yourself, Put your hands behind your back. Then have someone place familiar objects (a spoon, a pen, a book, a watch) in cither your right or your left hand and see if you can identify the object. You would not fed this tsk to be very difficult, would you? This is basically what Sperry and Gavraniga did with the split-brain patients. When an object was placed in the right hand in such a way that the patient could not see or hear it, messages about the object would travel to the left hemisphere nd the patient was able to name the object and describe it and its uses. However, when the same objects were placed in the left hand (connected to the right hemisphere), the patients vould not name them or describe them in any way, But did the patients karin their right brain ashat the object was? To find out, the researchers asked the participants 1o match the object in their left hand Gvithout seeing it, remember) toa group of various objects presented to them. This they could do as easily as you or I could. Again, this places verbal ability in the left hemisphere of the brain, Keep in mind that the reason you are able to name tmseen objects in your left hand is that the information from the right side of your brain is rearemitted via the corpus callosum to the left side, where your center for Janguage says, “That's a spoon!” Visual Plus Tactile Tests Combining these two types of tests provided support for the preceding find- ings and also offered additional interesting results. If participants Were shown a picture of an object to the right hemisphere only, they were unable to name tos describe it. in fact, they might display no verbal response at all oF vet deny that anything had been presented. However, ifthe patients were allowed To reach under the sereen with their left hand (still using only the right hemi- sphere) and touch a selection of objects, they were always able to find the one that had been presented visually. ‘The right hemisphere can think about and analyze objects 2° well. Gazzaniga reported that when the right hemisphere was shown a pichtt ofan item such asa cigarette, the participants could touch 10 objects behind the aoe nc all of whieh did not include a cigarette, and select an object that was most closely related to the item pictured—in this case, an ashtray. He went on to explain the following: ‘ F rc Oddly enough, however, even after their correct response, and while they Wer’ holding the ashtray in their left hand, they were unable to name or describe the object or the picture of the cigarette. Evidently, the left ‘hemisphere was co™ pletely divorced, in perception and knowledge, from the right. (p26) additional light on the languas? ne very famous, ingenious. 2 hen the word HEART was pro ual field and ART was mind) the functions Other tests were conducted to shed processing abilities of the right hemisphere. O revealing use of the visual apparatus came Ww! jected to the patients so that HE was sent to the right vis sent to the left, Now, keeping in mind (your connectedReading | One Brain or Two? < of the two hemispheres, what do you think the patients verbally reported seeing? If you said art, you were correct, However, and here is the revealing par, when the participants were presented with two cards with the words HE red ART printed on them and asked to point with the lefi hand to the word they had seen, they all pointed to 1tr! This demonstrated that the right hem sphere is able to comprehend language, although it does so in a different way from the left: in a nonverbal way. ‘The auditory tests conducted with the patients produced similar results. When paticnts were asked to reach with their left hand into a grab bag hidden from view and pull out certain specific objects (a wateh, a marble, a comb, a coin), they had no trouble. This demonstrated (hat the right hemisphere was comprehending language. It was even possible to describe a related aspect of dn item with dhe same accurate results, An example given by Gazzaniga was wwhen the patients were asked to find in a grab bag full of plastic fruit “the fruit monkeys like best,” they retrieved a banana, Or when told “Sunkist sells a lot of them, range. However, if these same pieces of fruit were placed out of view in the patients’ left hand, they were unable 10 say what they were, In other words, when a verbal response was required, the right they pulled out an o: hemisphere was unable to speak. One last example of this amazing difference between the two hemi- spheres involved plastic block letters on the table behind the screen When patients were asked to spell various words by feel with the left hand, they had An easy time doing so. Even if three or four Ietters that spelled specific words were placed behind the screen, they were able, leftchanded, to arrange them correctly into words, However, immediately after completing this task, the par ticipants could not name the word dey had just spelled. Clearly, the left hemi- sphere of the brain is superior to the right for speech (in some lefthanded people, this is reversed). But in what skills, if any, does the right hemisphere excel? Sperry and Gazzaniga found in this early work that visual tasks involy- ing spatial relationships and shapes were performed with greater proficien by the left hand (even though these patients were all righthanded). As can be seen in Figure 1-3, participants who copy three-dimensional drneings (using the pencil behind the screen) were much more stecessful when using their left hand, The researchers wanted to ex} plore emotional reactions of split-brain patients, While performing visual experiments, Sperry and Cazraniga sud- deniy lashed a picture ofa nude woman to either the leftor right hemisphere. In one instance, when this picture was shown to the left hemisphere of a female patient She la presented to the mediately a sly simile spread ov hed and verbally identified the picture of a nude, When it was later ial hemisphere, she said . «she saw nothing, but almost er her face and she began to chuckle. Asked: Nhe sid: “Tdon’t know ... nothing... oh—that funny ihough the right hemisphere could 1 1 describe what it had seen, the sight nevertheless elicited an emotional response like the one evoked in the left hemisphere. (p- 29) DeeChapter E Biology and Human Behavior EXAMPLE LERT HAND HIGHT HAND FIGURE 1-3. Drawings made by splitbrain patients. (Adapted from he Split Brain in Man,” by Michacl 8. Gazzanigga.} DISCUSSION I conclusion drawn f st within each person’s ¢ that if our t ticle was fh with com- 1 is really wo nm the researeh reported in this iui — The over that oo different brains plex abilities. Gazzaniga notes the possibi brains, then perhaps we have the potential to process twice as much divided. Indeed, some research evidence suggests we the ability to perfor: two Cognitive tasks as fast ry ouLOne, tion if the two halves ar that split-brain patients vean © aya normal pe SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS These findings and subsequent others were extemely sign the two halves of your brain have 1 rareh carsice out by Sperry, Garzaniga, a" a1 faese ‘They demonstrated tha any specialized skills and functions. Your left brain is “better” at speaking, writ ical calculation, and ea! ing, and it is the primary center for langtage. Your right hemisphere, B® vizing faces, solving probl ys i s. In the possesses superior capabilities for reco} ing spatial relationships, symbolic reasoning, and artistic 4 — |Go bh Reading 1 One Brain or Two? 9 ce Sperry and Gazraniga’s “split-brain” discoveries, psychobiological continued to uncover the amazing complexities of the human fain, Our brains are far more divided and compartmentalized than merely tho heiispheres, We now know that a multinide of specific structures within very specialized cognitive and behavioral functions. ed knowledge of the specialized functioning of the brain 1 victims of stroke or head injury more effectively. By knowing, its are likely to exist asa ppropriate as fully and years sin researchers have the brain serve Our in allows us to tre the location of the damage, we can predict what def Through this knowledge, therapists can employ tation strategies to help patients recove 1 recove ing and rehabi patie relear quickly as possible, Garnaniga and Sperry, afier years of continuous work in this area, stig: mnisphere of yout brain really is a mind of its own. In a later study, split-brain patients were tested on much more complex problems than juve been discussed here. One question asked was “What profession would you choose?” A male patient verbally (left hemisphere) responded that he would Choose to be a drafisman, but his left hand (right hemisphere) spelled, by touch in block letters, audomobite racer (Gazzaniga & LeDoux, 1978). Gazzaniga has tsken this theory a step further. He has proposed that even in people whose brains are normal and intact, the Go hemispheres may not be in complete communication (Gazzaniga, 1985). For example, ifeertain bits of information, such as those forming an not stored ina linguistic format, the left hemisphere may not have access to it, The result of thisis that you may feel sad and not be able to say why. As this is an uncomfortable cognitive dilemma, the left hemisphere may try to finda verbal reason to explain the sadness (after all, language is its main job). Howev ‘our left hemisphere does not have all the necessary data, its explanation may actually be gested that each b i motion, are because wron} CRITICISMS ‘The findings from the split brain studi Garraniga, and others have rarely bee ies carried out over the years by Sperry, disputed, The main body of criticism about this research has focused instead on the way the idea of right and left- brain specialization has filtered down to popular culture and the media. Awidely believed myth states that some people are more rightbrained oF more Lefedrained, or that one side of your brain needs to be developed in order for you to improve certain skills (mere on this next). Jerre Levy, a psy- chobiologist at the University of Chicago, has been in the forefront of scien- tists ying to dispel the notion that we have ovo separately functioning brains, She claims that it is pree functions that they must integrate tht ed, Through such integration greater dan and different from the ab se ely because each hemisphere has separate ad of separating them, your brain is able to s of abilities inst as is commonly beli Perform in ways that are cither side alone. When you read a story, for € ing in emotional content. (humor, unple, your right hemisphere is specializ- pathos), picturing visual descriptions,10 Chapter 1 Biology and Human Behavior story structure as a whole, and appreciating artistic of metaphors). While all this is happening, your written words, deriving meaning from the rd sentences, and translating words stood as kanguage. The keeping tack of the ting style (stich as the use eft hemisphere understands the comples relationships among words into their phonetic sounds so that they can be und ; are able to read, understand, and appreciate a story is Urtt your - imegrated structure (Levys 1985) nan activity uses only one side of the reason you brain functions In fact, Levy explains that ne hun brain: “The popular myths are interpretations andl wishes, not the observa tons of scientists, Normal people have not hall a brain, nor two brains, but one gloriously differentiated brain, with cach hemisphe nitributing its specialized abilities” (Levy, 1985, p. 1). ce RECENT APPLICATIONS The continuing influence of the split-brain research by Sperry and € echoes the quote from Levy, A review of recent medical and psychological literature reveals numerous articles in various fields referring to the early work and methodology of Roger Sperry, as well as to more recent findings by Gazraniga and his associates. For example, a study from L998 conducted in France (Hommet & Billard, 1998) hay questioned the very foundations of the Sperry and Gazzaniga studics—namely, that severing the corpus callosum actually divides the hemispheres of the brain, ‘The French study found chat children who were born without a corpus callosum Ga rare brain maltorma 1 theit reaniga tion) demonstrated that information was being transmitted bens brain hemispheres. The reseai hers conchided that significant connections other than the corpus callosum ist exist in these children, Whether such subcortical connections are indeed present in splitbrain individuals remains unclear. Recent research has sounded an additional note of caution in how ede a might be tempted to apply Gazzaniga’s findings (Alferink & Farinet Dougan, 2010). ‘The widespread belief that different brain hemispheres ental distinct cognitive hinctions has been clearly demonstrated only ina me number of patients who, for specific medical reasons have undergone He GABIEAT proce . a surgical pr cedure of severing the corpus callosum, We shonld not make le unwa ral asst i finveli i Hhe Rnwartanted assumption that the thugs trom ese nelvidials should apply to exeryone whose brains ate intact. "To leap Iho the assumaptian that different brain hemipheves ate responsible far unique tasks (0 fusnimuating iets supe based on these findings is vishy, The point some researchers PS. the patients on whos i ake isthat the paticntson whom thisteseatcl yas aed lipavea tn ypical ction even belore the surgery. Therefore, 10 3 i caaeational cceibsaaee a rR erefore, to assume that edues lology should focus on one he ‘ aiimal ee season one hemisphere or the other tor those with abana red brain lunctioning should be avoided. Nevertheless, rescarchers continue to explore mea to explore th spheres have separate, yet di idea that aur We br: rect, Lunetions and. infhaenee’+Reading 1 One Brain or Two? ul ne such study (Morton, 2003) demonstrated how your dominant hemisphere may lead you toward specific inter nd professions. Morton's research made two discoverics in this regard. Using a special written test called “The Best Hand Test.” which measures hemisphericity (whether a person is right or lef-ebrain oriented), Morton found that among 400 students enrolled in college courses, 56% were left-brain oriented. However, On firstyear, gene when the same methods were applied to 180 students in various, specialized tipperlevel courses, the range of Tefi-brain students ranged from 38% to 65%. This difference indicated that something about a person’s brain hemi- spheres was associated with spreading students out over a variety of college degrees and interests. Second, and more revealing, Morton employed the same method in determining the hemispheric orientation of members of tarious professions in university settings. The findings indicated that hemi spheric specialization appears to be predictive of professional choices. For example, among biochemists Morton found that 83% were lefbrain ori- ented, while among astronomers only 29% showed a left-brain preference (p. 319). You can sce how this would make sense in relation to Sperry and Gazzaniga’s work. Biology and chemistry rely more heavily on linguistic abili- whereas astronomers must have greater abilities in spatial relationships tended). tie {no pun CONCLUSION Some have carried this, separate-brain idea a step further and applied it to some psychological disorders, such as dissociative, multiple personality disor- der (e.g., Schiffer, 1996). The idea behind this notion is that in some people with intact, “nonsplit” brains, the right hemisphere may be able to function at a greater-than-normal level of independence from the left, and it may even take control of a person's consciousness for periods of time. Is it possible that multiple personality disorder might be the expression of hidden personalities contained in our right hemispheres? It’s something to think about . . . with both of your hemispheres. not) based education: Dangers of misunder standing and misappli ince research, Exeeplionality, 18, 42. Gazzaniga, M.S. (1985). The social brain, New York: Basie Books Garraniga, M.S, LeDous, J. E. (1978). The integrated mind. New York: Plenum Press. Hommet, C., & Billard, C. (19 ‘tos syndrome in children, Neurochirurgie, 44(1), No-1g Len.) (1985, May). Right hrain, left brain: Fact and fiction. Pychology Today, 42-44 Morton, B. E. (2003). Line bisection-based hemisphenicity estimates ‘of university students and professionals: Eetence of sorting curing higher education and career selection. Brain and Poeane rution, 5203). NICHE fi 'uente, A. E. (1995). Roger Wolcott Sperry Schiffer, F196), Cogntive ability of the tg logical function, Harvard Revirw of Psychiatry, Sperry, RW, (1968), Hemisphere disconnection and Psychologist, 23, 723-7 Alferink, Ly & Farme! 913-1994). American Psychologist, $0(11), 940-941, Inchemisphere: Possible contributions to peycho- 4{3), 126-138. ‘unity in conscious awareness. American