Advertisement

Compensatory Mechanisms - Neural and Behavioural: Evidence from Prenatal Damage to the Forebrain Commissures

  • M. A. Jeeves
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 325)

Abstract

In the ten years since I last reviewed this topic18, focussing in particular on how it may add to our understanding of recovery from early brain injury, there have been several significant developments. These make it timely to reassess earlier views on compensatory mechanisms, neural and behavioural, in callosal agenesis. First, in the last ten years new emphases have developed in our thinking about the diversity of functions subsumed by the forebrain commissures20,56. An earlier concentration on the integrative functions of these commissures has been enlarged by a fresh recognition of their likely inhibitory56 and facilitatoti33 roles (see Table 1). Second, a series of replications of earlier studies carried out on additional cases of callosal agenesis have enabled a re-evaluation of the earlier findings, many of which were based on single cases. This more recent work has helped to eliminate the unwanted effects of possible artefacts resulting from associated abnormalities in callosal agenesis, making possible a greater confidence that the deficits noted in earlier reports are specifically attributable to the failure of the forebrain commissures to develop. Third, investigations have been extended into new domains so that the overall neuropsychological profile of In the ten years since I last reviewed this topic 18, focussing in particular on how it may add to our understanding of recovery from early brain injury, there have been several significant developments. These make it timely to reassess earlier views on compensatory mechanisms, neural and behavioural, in callosal agenesis. First, in the last ten years new emphases have developed in our thinking about the diversity of functions subsumed by the forebrain commissures2o,56. An earlier concentration on the integrative functions of these commissures has been enlarged by a fresh recognition of their likely inhibitor 16 and facilitatoti 3 roles (see Table 1). Second, a series of replications of earlier studies carried out on additional cases of callosal agenesis have enabled a re-evaluation of the earlier findings, many of which were based on single cases. This more recent work has helped to eliminate the unwanted effects of possible artefacts resulting from associated abnormalities in callosal agenesis, making possible a greater confidence that the deficits noted in earlier reports are specifically attributable to the failure of the forebrain commissures to develop. Third, investigations have been extended into new domains so that the overall neuropsychological profile of callosal agenesis has become more comprehensive and well documented. Thus reports have appeared of studies of language8,28,49,50, memory3 and stereo perception21 in callosal agenesis, as well as detailed and careful analyses of bimanual motor performance28,9.

Keywords

Corpus Callosum Anterior Commissure Bimanual Coordination Early Brain Injury Interhemispheric Transfer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berlucchi, G., and Antonini, A., 1990, The role of the corpus callosum in the representation of the visual field in cortical areas, in C. Trevarthen, ed. Brain Circuits and Functions of the Mind, Essays in honour of Roger W. Sperry, pp 129–139, CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiarello, C., 1980, A house divided? Cognitive functioning with callosal agenesis, Brain and Lang., 11, 128–158.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, C.R., and Geffen, G.M., 1989, Corpus callosum surgery and recent memory. A review, Brain, 112, 165–175.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, J.M., and Zaidel, E., 1989, Simple reaction times to lateralized light flashes: Varieties of interhemispheric communication routes, Brain, 112, 849–870.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cowey A., 1985, Disturbances of stereopsis by brain damage, in D. Ingle, ed., Brain Mechanisms and Spatial Vision, NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, Martimas Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cronin-Golomb, A., 1986, Subcortical transfer of cognitive information in subjects with complete forebrain commissurotomy, Cortex, 22, 499–519Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dennis, M., 1976, Impaired sensory and motor differentiation with corpus callosum agenesis: a lack of callosal inhibition during ontogeny. Neuropsychologia, 14, 455–469.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dennis, M., 1981, Language in a congenitally acallosal brain, Brain and Lang., 12, 33–53.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donoso, A., and Santander, M., 1982, Hemialexia y afasia hemianoptica en agenesia del curepo calloso, Rev Chilena Neuropsiquiatria, 20, 137–144.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geffen, G.M., Forrester, G.M., Jones, D.L., and Simpson, D.A, 1992, Auditory verbal learning and memory in cases of callosal agenesis, in M. Lassonde, and M.A. Jeeves, eds., Callosal Agenesis: The Natural Split Brain, Plenum, New York. (in press)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamilton, C.R., and Vermeire, B.A., 1986, Localisation of visual functions with partially split-brain monkeys, in F. Lepore, M. Ptito, and H.H. Jasper, eds., Two Hemispheres-One Brain, pp. 315–333. Alan R. Liss Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Innocenti, G.M., 1981, Growth and reshaping of axons in the establishment of visual callosal connections, Science, 212, 824–827.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Innocenti, G.M., 1986, The general organization of callosal connections in the cerebral cortex, in E.G. Jones, and A.A. Peters, eds., Cerebral Cortex, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Innocenti, G.M., 1986, What is so special about callosal connections, in F. Lepore, M. Ptito, H.H. Jasper, eds., Two Hemispheres-One Brain: Functions of the Corpus Callosum, pp. 75-81, Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Innocenti, G.M., and Caminiti, R, 1980, Postnatal shaping of callosal connections from sensory areas, Exp Brain Res., 38, 381–394.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jeeves, M.A, 1965, Psychological studies of three cases of congenital agenesis of the corpus callosum, in E.G. Ettlinger, ed., Functions of the Corpus Callosum, pp 7394, CIBA Foundation Study Groups, Vol 20, Churchill, London.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jeeves, M.A, 1979, Some limits to interhemispheric integration in cases of callosal agenesis and partial commissurotomy, in I.S. Russell, M.W. Van Hof, and G. Berlucchi, eds., Structure and Function of the Cerebral Commissures, pp 449-474, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jeeves, M.A, 1981, Age related effects of agenesis and partial sectioning of the neocortical commissures, in M.W. van Hof, and G. Mohn, eds. Functional Recovery from Brain Damage, pp 31–52, Elsevier, Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jeeves, M.A, 1986, Callosal agenesis: neuronal and developmental adaptations, in F. Lepore, M. Ptito, H.H. Jasper, eds., Two Hemispheres-One Brain, pp 403–421, Alan R Liss Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jeeves, M.A, 1991, Hemispheric Interactions, in Encyclopedia of Human Biology, Vol 4, pp. 129–134, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeeves, M.A, 1991, Stereoperception in callosal agenesis and partial callosotomy, Neuropsychologia, 29, 19–34.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jeeves, M.A, and Rajalakshmi, R., 1964, Psychological studies of a case of congenital agenesis of the corpus callosum, Neuropsychologia, 2, 247–252.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jeeves, M.A, and Wilson, A.F., 1969, Tactile transfer in neonatal callosal section in the cat. PsychOn Sci, 16, 235–237.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jeeves, M.A, and Milner, A.D., 1987, Specificity and plasticity in interhemispheric integration: evidence from callosal agenesis, in D. Ottoson, ed., Duality and Unity of the Brain-Unified Functioning and Specialization of the Hemispheres, pp. 416–441, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jeeves, M.A, and Temple, C.M., 1987, A further study of language function in callosal agenesis, Brain and Lang., 32, 325–335.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jeeves, M.A, and Silver, P.H., 1988, The formation of finger grip during prehension in an acallosal patient, Neuropsychologia, 26, 153–159.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jeeves, M.A, and Silver, P.H., 1988, Interhemispheric transfer of spatial tactile information in callosal agenesis and partial commissurotomy, Cortex, 24, 601–604.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jeeves, M.A, Silver, P.H., and Jacobson, I., 1988, Bimanual coordination in callosal agenesis and partial commissurotomy, Neuropsychologia, 26, 833–850.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jeeves, M.A, Silver, P.H., and Milne, A.B., 1988, Role of the corpus callosum in the development of a bimanual motor skill, Develop. NeuroPsychol., 4,305–323.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jung, R., 1962, Summary of the conference, in Moutcastle, V., ed., Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance, pp 274-275, John Hopkins, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Laget, P., Raimbault J., d’Allest, A.M., Flores-Guevara, R., Mariani, J., and Thieriot-Prevost, G., 1976, La maturation des potentiels evoques somesthesiqiues (PES) chez l’homme, Electroencephalogr Clin. Neurophysiol., 40, 499–515.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Laget, P., d’Allest, A.M., Fihey, R., and Lortholary, O., 1977, L’interet des potentials evoques somesthesiques homolateraux dans les agenesies du corps calleux, Rev. Electroencephalogr. Neurophysiol. Clin., 7, 498–502.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lassonde, M., 1986, The facilitatory influence of the corpus callosum on intrahemispheric processing, in F. Lepore, M. Ptito, H.H. Jasper, eds., Two Hemispheres-One Brain: Functions of the Corpus Callosum, pp. 385–401, Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martin, A, 1985, A qualitative limitation on visual transfer via the anterior commissure, Brain, 108, 43–63.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meerwaldt, J.D., 1983, Disturbance of spatial perception in a patient with agenesis of the corpus callosum, Neuropsychologia, 21, 161–165.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Milner, A.D., and Jeeves, M.A, 1981, The functions of the corpus caIlosum in infancy and adulthood, Behav. Brain Sci., 4, 30–31.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mitchell, D.E., and Blakemore, C., 1970, Binocular depth perception and the corpus callosum, Vision Res., 10, 49–54.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moscovitch, M., 1977, The development of lateralization of language functions and its relation to cognitive and linguistic development: a review and some theoretical speculations, in S.J. Segalowitz, F.A. Gruber, eds., Language Development and Neurological Theory, pp. 193–211, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Myers, J.J., and Sperry, R.W., 1985, Interhemispheric communication after section of the forebrain commissures, Cortex, 21, 249–260.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Perenin, M.T., 1978, Visual function within the hemianopic field following early cerebral hemidecortification in man-II. Pattern discrimination, Neuropsychologia, 16, 697–708.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Perenin, M.T., and Jeannerod, M., 1978, Visual function within the hemianopic field following early cerebral hemidecortication in man-I. Spatial localization, Neuropsychologia, 16, 1–13.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Preilowski, B.F.P., 1972, Possible contributions of the anterior forebrain commissures to bilateral motor coordination, Neuropsychologia, 10, 267–277.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ptito, M., Lepore F., Lassonde M., Dion C., and Miceli, D., 1986, Neural mechanisms for stereopsis in cats, in F. Lepore, M. Ptito, and R.R. Jasper, Two Hemispheres One Brain, eds., pp. 335–350, Alan R. Liss Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Risse, G.L., Le Doux, J., Springer, S.P., Wilson, D.H., Gazzaniga, M.S., 1978, The anterior commissure in man: functional variation in a multisensory system, Neuropsychologia, 16, 23–31.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Saul, R., and Sperry, R.W., 1968, Absence of commissurotomy symptoms with agenesis of the corpus callosum, Neurology, 18, 307.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sergent, J., 1986, Subcortical coordination of hemisphere activity in commissurotomized patients, Brain, 109, 357–369.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sergent, J., 1990, Furtive incursions into bicameral minds: Integrative and coordinating role of subcortical structures, Brain, 113, 537–568.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sperry, R.W., 1990, see Brain Circuits and Functions of the Mind. C. Trevarthen, ed., Essays in honour of Roger W. Sperry, CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Temple, C.M., Jeeves M.A., and Vilarroya, O.O., 1989, Ten pen men-Explicit phonological processing in two children with callosal agenesis, Brain and Lang., 37, 548–564.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Temple, C.M., Jeeves M.A., and Vilarroya, O.O., 1990, Reading in callosal agenesis, Brain and Lang., 39,235–253.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Timney, B., Elberger, A.J., and Vandewater, M.L., 1985, Binocular depth perception in the cat following early corpus callosum section, Exp. Brain Res., 60, 19–26.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Timney, B., and Lansdown, G., 1988, Binocular depth perception, visual acuity and visual fields in cats following neonatal section of the optic chiasm, Exp. Brain Res., 207.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Trevarthen, C., and Sperry, R.W., 1973, Perceptual unity of the ambient visual field in human commissurotomy patients, Brain, 96, 547–570.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weiskrantz, L., 1986, Blindsight: A Case Study and Implications, Oxford Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zaidel, E., 1976, Language, dichotic listening and the disconnected hemispheres, in D.O. Walter, L. Rogers, and J.M. Finzi-Fried, eds., Conference on Human Brain Function, pp. 103–110. Brain Information Service/BRI Publications Office: UCLA.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zaidel, E., 1986, Callosal dynamics and right hemisphere language, in F. Lepore, M. Ptito, and R.R. Jasper, eds., Two Hemispheres-One Brain: Functions of the Corpus Callosum, pp 435–459, Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Jeeves
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychological LaboratoryUniversity of St. AndrewsSt. AndrewsScotland

Personalised recommendations