Content deleted Content added
fix header |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Lateralization of brain function) (bot |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 24:
I am being taken to task for suggesting that it is disrespectful to brain researchers who (and I do know this) use sophisticated mathematics, to suggest that in their assertions about which parts of the brain are involved in mathematics, they are applying a childishly simple notion of what mathematics is. But this article as it is now written does encourage that impression. If the impression is wrong, the article should be changed accordingly. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:No one should take you to task; these are important and pertinent points you raise. You may find it useful to look up [[acalculia]]; this is a neurologic finding that can be seen in relative isolation. In clinical practice it refers to difficulty with simple calculation - addition and subtraction, mainly, at least as I have seen it tested. Gerstmann claimed it was related to lesions of the left angular gyrus, but this is probably too specific to be applicable in all cases. -[[User:Ikkyu2|Ikkyu2]] 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
::Heh. He's referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Hardy&diff=37013979&oldid=36467040 my comment here] that I left on his user page. As the self-appointed [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]] bouncer I don't take too kindly to perceived intentional rudeness; I am a big fan of the [[Meta:Don't be a dick]] policy. Also, your point on [[acalculia]] (an article I've helped write) is dead on, but still not quite the point Mr. Hardy is getting at methinks. [[User:Semiconscious|<
:::"Perceived intentional rudeness" was only ''perceived''. Nor do I think there was ''u''nintentional rudeness; someone just misunderstood what I wrote. However, I will admit that if I had written less hastily, I might have anticipated some ways in which my words could get misunderstood and taken care to phrase it differently.
Line 33:
:''Reasoning functions such as language and mathematics are often lateralized to the left hemisphere of the brain''
from my understanding its more symbolic processing and temporal processing in the left. Reasoning is a little to broad a claim. --[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Pfafrich|talk]]) 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
::[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]]: If you would not mind altering this as well, I would appreciate it. I'm trying to simultaneously do too many real life things to really correct this language right now. See my response below for my thoughts on this article. If you don't get to this in the next few days I should have time next week to dig up better references and resources to more clearly express the notion of laterality of "reasoning" in the brain. Cheers! [[User:Semiconscious|<
::: No problem I'll wait. This seem an article very much in gestation at the moment. --[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Pfafrich|talk]]) 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 56:
[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5416/970 This article from ''Science'' magazine] attempts to describe more precise definitions of "mathematics", suggesting it either has linguistic origins or is more visuo-spatial. The crux of the article suggests there are different forms, what they call "exact arithmetic" and "approximate arithmetic". "Exact arithmetic"--"what brain researchers consider to be mathematics'"--is strongly left-lateralized as this article suggests. "Approximate arithmetic"--"what mathematicians consider to be 'mathematics'"--is bilateral.
Again, in deference to civility, I will amend this article to more clearly state these differences despite my intuition that this is a semantic argument that is unnecessarily clouding what is essentially an already poorly-defined notion. [[User:Semiconscious|<
::Also, thank you both for coming here to edit this page: if nothing else it is enforcing a more precise definition of the terms we are using. If I am coming across as abrasive, I have no intentions other than clarity and I truly appreciate the efforts here. [[User:Semiconscious|<
I was not suggesting anything about "approximate" versus "exact". I was suggesting that
Line 71:
::What I seem to be poorly expressing here is that--while I understand your point—it is too ill-defined for an encyclopedic article. You have pointed out to me a place where the language is poorly defined and thus open to many interpretations. Therefore I have altered the language acordingly and provided a citation in support of my change. You can continue arguing about your feelings as to what "mathematics" truly is but that is no longer relevant to this article or this discussion as the word "mathematics" or any of its variants no longer appears in the article in any form (other than in the title of reference I provided).
::I further agree with [[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] that "reasoning" is a poor word choice as well. In my experience, the casual reader on Wikipedia does not like a great deal of technical language. In my attempt at trying to communicate a relatively simple idea to benefit the maximum number of readers, I chose to use simpler terms. This was clearly not an appropriate choice however, as I was unaware at how poorly defined a term such as "mathematics" was. My point being, you may continue arguing this--and I will gladly engage you in an argument of semantics if you would like--however in the context of this article I consider this issue to be resolved. [[User:Semiconscious|<
:::I don't think imprecision in the definition of "mathematics" is the issue here at all. It is not easy to define "mathematics", and any definition would be subject to endless debate among informed people (and uninformed ones too, I suppose). But I meant that what actual mathematicians and other actual humans actually do, when doing things that everyone would agree is mathematics, is mostly not algorithmic processing. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 80:
==Exact/algorithmic/blah blah==
Hardy: Did you read the citation I provided? I was simply using the language they used. You can apply whatever words you'd like to this: it's so nebulously defined that I just really don't care. However I find you use of the phrase "recent discussion tends to confirm my suspicion" in your edit summary amusing, since it was more you talking ''at'' me rather than a discussion. :) [[User:Semiconscious|<
::I've looked at it enough to know that it provides some context that aids in understanding what they mean by "exact arithmetic" and that context is not (yet, anyway) in the present Wikipedia article. That article ''and'' the things you and others have said here do tend to confirm my suspicion. It's just as if they were confusing that sort of thinking with what mathematics actually is. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 87:
Recall that we are editing an assemblage of other people's work here, not conducting original research or trying to form cohesive theories out of disparate publications. Much of the current discussion above would absolutely vanish if the editors would confine themselves to statements developed from and taken directly from source publications, ideally cited by page number and possibly quoted briefly under fair use. -[[User:Ikkyu2|Ikkyu2]] 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:Ugh I'm so sick of this. Michael Hardy clearly has strong feelings a '''''his''''' definition of math. After looking over at the [[Mathematics]] article, there's a huge issue with defining mathematis; I'm not sure why Michael Hardy is coming in here and making changes that go against a cited article in ''Science'' inserting his own definition based upon phrases such as "confirm my suspicion" and "what mathematics actually is". These are opinions sir, and not worthy of countering a good citation. I have conceded several times over that my original statement was unclear, so I feel the citation is a good compromise. But you just keep inserting your own personal views on the matter.
:It's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=11180862&oldid=11180822 clear] you feel strongly on this matter, but others [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mathematics&diff=11160991&oldid=11160652 feel differently] than you and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathematics#NPOV_and_original_research.3F defining mathematics] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathematics#Recent_revert_wars problematic], so please quit reverting based upon your suspicions. Suspicion does not trump citation. [[User:Semiconscious|<
:::I did not propose any particular definition of mathematics. I don't know why Semiconscious thinks I did. I edited this article for clarity, not to support particular opinions. The only thing I said about the nature of mathematics consisted of a list of '''examples''', not a definition, and I don't think any of them are controversial. Also, to say that mechanically executing algorithms is '''not''' mathematics is also not contrvoersial. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 00:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 339:
::You very clearly need to re-read the criteria for adding new data to a wikipedia page when it contradicts old data. Plos one is a peer reviewed medical journal - and it clearly states in [[WP:MEDRS]] that "Peer reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles." Secondly the only source you have for "general consensus" is a previous study in another journal. Do I really need to spell this out? In all reality this whole page needs to be rewritten because much of the data is now proven to be false by new methods; that is, whole brain lateralization scans as opposed to the previous localized scans. not only is the study I posted more thorough in it's more advanced methods, but it has been completely unopposed in the medical community. [[User:Countered|Countered]] ([[User talk:Countered|talk]]) 20:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
::I don't mean to come off as hostile either - I just don't really understand how wikipedia can maintain quality while claiming things which have seemingly been thoroughly disproved. Plos one is even quoted on [[WP:MEDRS]]. I guess I just don't understand what more is necessary to disprove past claims. [[User:Countered|Countered]] ([[User talk:Countered|talk]]) 21:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
== Popular meaning ==
Can't the article start with the popular meaning, as a way to debunk it, but still be useful. People every day say "left brained" and I came here to see what it meant and was confronted by a wordy pedantic wordy blah blah wordy yadda yadda wordy digression. Or perhaps just have an article called "left brained" and put in the popular meaning and say "but it ain't true, see lateralization". Wikipedia is getting ruined by amateur pedants.
:Disagree. If you want the "popular" meaning based on usage, consult a dictionary. If you want the currently most popular meaning, consult a web-dictionary. Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia that indexes and strives toward organization of the knowledgeable, not the knowledge of the man-in-the-street. In any case, there are an almost infinite number of "popular" conceptions about. Which of those do you propose be used? Yours?
::The same argument can be turned around. Since no area of knowledge is ever "closed," the question becomes one of "which definitive factual meaning do you report on?" The bottom line is that people come here for answers; if you already know the answer to a question, why consult an encyclopedia? And if you don't know the answer, chances are that you may come here without a well-formed question in mind. The phrases "left-brain" and "right-brain" are common, not just on the street, and they refer to something different than just talking about lateralization of brain function. Though the wording may be inaccurate and misleading, it's no more so than saying "the sun is rising." Also, try to remember to sign your posts (not to be too left-brained about it). [[User:Jmrowland|rowley]] ([[User talk:Jmrowland|talk]]) 16:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
::I agree. I think covering popular misconceptions about a specific subject in a specific field is well within the bounds of Wikipedia's goals. of course I just phrase that differently then listing a "popular meaning," but I believe the intent is to cover misconceptions about lateralization. it shouldn't be too hard to create a section called "popular misconceptions." [[User:Wulframm|Wulframm]] ([[User talk:Wulframm|talk]]) 19:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
== The Master and His Emissary ==
''[[The Master and His Emissary]]: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World'' is a new study of the specialist hemispheric functioning of the brain, and the conflict between their world views, by the psychiatrist and writer Iain McGilchrist. Published 2009. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color:green;">Esowteric</span>]]+[[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color:blue;">Talk</span>]]</b> 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
: As ''The Economist'' notes in their review, McGilchrist seems to take astonishingly liberties with the scientific literature [[User:Edhubbard|Edhubbard]] ([[User talk:Edhubbard|talk]]) 18:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::But the reader is also treated to some very loose talk and to generalisations of breathtaking sweep. The left’s world is “ultimately narcissistic”; its “prime motivation is power”, and the Industrial Revolution was, in some mysterious sense, the left’s “most audacious assault yet on the world of the right hemisphere”. The sainted right, by contrast, has “ideals” that are in harmony with an “essentially local, agrarian, communitarian, organic” conception of democracy... But he offers no evidence that such differences can be explained in physiological terms... The book ends with a deflating admission that will not surprise those readers who feel the author’s main claims about the cerebral hemispheres have the ring of loose analogies rather than hard explanations. Mr McGilchrist would not be unhappy to learn that what he has to say about the roles of the hemispheres in Western culture is simply a metaphor and is not literally true. In other words, he seems to be in two minds about his own thesis, which is fitting but not encouraging.
:::Have expanded and balanced the article a bit now. Apparently the philosopher [[Mary Midgley]] will be reviewing the book in [[The Guardian]] in early January 2010. Will see what she has to say. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color:green;">Esowteric</span>]]+[[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color:blue;">Talk</span>]]</b> 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''' Mary Midgley's review (Jan 2010) <ref>http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/02/1</ref> says "McGilchrist's explanation of such oddities in terms of our divided nature is clear, penetrating, lively, thorough and fascinating. Though neurologists may well not welcome it because it asks them new questions, the rest of us will surely find it splendidly thought-provoking." Given that [[Mary Midgley]] is acknowledged by Wikipedia as being described by The Guardian as "a fiercely combative philosopher and the UK's 'foremost scourge of 'scientific pretension'", Wikipedia would do well to allow McGilchist's book as a reference. [[User:Simplicissimo|Simplicissimo]] ([[User talk:Simplicissimo|talk]]) 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
* The book is published by [[Yale University Press]]. That is a [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view|significant]] publisher. Whether we think it is hard science, metaphor or philosophy, a book by them addressing this specific topic is a RS and a bona fide addition. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<span style="color:#0000FF;">JN</span>]][[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color:#FFBF00;">466</span>]]''' 20:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, it does matter. See [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Edhubbard|Edhubbard]] ([[User talk:Edhubbard|talk]]) 02:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::: To clarify, it does not matter for the entry on the book, itself. We should have an entry on the book. But, given that this book does not purport to actually provide any factually correct information on the topic of ''this article'', lateralization of brain function, but rather uses it as a "loose analog[y]" or a "metaphor" that is "not literally true", it should not be included on ''this page'' due to the wikipedia policies cited above. [[User:Edhubbard|Edhubbard]] ([[User talk:Edhubbard|talk]]) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''' What we're talking about here is my attempt to include the book in "further reading", an action that was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lateralization_of_brain_function&action=historysubmit&diff=333312394&oldid=333115114 reverted]. I can appreciate your desire to keep what you see as "poppsych" weeded out of the article, so that it is not flagged as "pseudoscience" (whilst remembering that this is not someone's "recommended reading list" but a representative list of "further reading"). However, I think it's a little unfair to base your judgement on the reaction of a reviewer in ''The Economist''. The [http://www.iainmcgilchrist.com/The_Master_and_his_Emissary_by_McGilchrist.pdf introduction to the book (pdf)] seems to paint a different picture of the book's actual content.
::::I like to run articles past their subjects and the author points out to me that "As to the neuropsychological, neurophysiological and other evidence, there are about 3,000 references to the literature included in the notes", and he himself dismisses what he sees as some popular misconceptions about lateralization, though I am reliant on input from reliable sources and cannot of course use phrases like "meticulously documented" until reliable sources use such phraseology. Further reading could perhaps be split into "mainstream" and "<strike>fringe</strike>" "popular psychology" (again remembering that heliocentricity was at one time dismissed as "fringe" theory :)), if it can be established that this is fringe theory, in order not to give undue weight to the less popular mainstream. Just a thought, <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color:green;">Esowteric</span>]]+[[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color:blue;">Talk</span>]]</b> 11:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
:None of the reviewers appear to have scientific credentials, as far as I can see. A book of this sort is likely to be reviewed by ''Science'' or ''Nature'' soon, if it hasn't been already, and reviews there would give a much better idea of whether this is a suitable book to direct readers toward for further information. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 14:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, that seems fair enough. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color:green;">Esowteric</span>]]+[[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color:blue;">Talk</span>]]</b> 15:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
== Connection between Broca's and Wernicke’s ==
Moved existing comment from the article to here: [[Special:Contributions/69.62.226.199|69.62.226.199]] ([[User talk:69.62.226.199|talk]]) 22:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
:The first sentence Area and Wernicke’s Area are linked by a white matter fiber tract, the arcuate fasciculus.is explicitly negated in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcuate_fasciculus.
[edit]
::The article [[Arcuate fasciculus]] explicitly states (cited) that, while it was believed to connect Broca's area and Wernicke's area, it is no longer believed to do so. I don't have the time now to figure out what should be incorporated into this article, but I did want to be sure to bring it to the attention of hopefully anyone involved with this page. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly<span style="color:green;">a</span>]] 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I think the truth is that the cellular-level synaptic connections and boundaries of Broca's, Wernicke's, and really any other area of the cortex are poorly understood, and therefore an accurate but still helpful statement might be, e.g., "the arcuate fasciculus connects the lateral prefrontal cortex (including Broca's area) with the posterior parietal and temporal cortex (including Wernicke's area) and has been shown to play a role in language processing." (See, e.g., Catani et al 2007<ref name="Catani et al 2007">{{Cite journal | last1 = Catani | first1 = M. | last2 = Allin | first2 = M. P. G. | last3 = Husain | first3 = M. | last4 = Pugliese | first4 = L. | last5 = Mesulam | first5 = M. M. | last6 = Murray | first6 = R. M. | last7 = Jones | first7 = D. K. | title = Symmetries in human brain language pathways correlate with verbal recall | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0702116104 | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | volume = 104 | issue = 43 | pages = 17163–17168 | pmc = 2040413 | year = 2007 | pmid = 17939998}}</ref>.) [[User:PhineasG|PhineasG]] ([[User talk:PhineasG|talk]]) 15:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
<references />
== The Relationship Between Sperry and Gazzaniga is Unclear ==
The article lists Michael Gazzaniga and Roger Wolcott Sperry in that order as the researchers. Sperry actually was Gazzaniga's professor at the start of this research. Sperry is a full generation older and is considered the pioneer in this research. Gazzaniga's work is outstanding, but he got his start under Sperry's lead. Sperry is no longer alive but Gazzaniga is still leading research efforts in neuroscience. I realize this is not much more than a footnote in the full story of split-brain research, but even footnotes (or their metaphorical equivalent) should not be misleading. [[User:Soulfulpsy|Soulfulpsy]] ([[User talk:Soulfulpsy|talk]]) 06:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:So basically you're suggesting to change the order? [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 13:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
== Additional images ==
In both of the additional images, "Corpus callusum" should be spelled "Corpus callosum."
Correct spelling is vital for anatomic terms (or any standardized terminology).
Even if the spelling were corrected, the two additional images do not seem to add anything useful or specific to the article.
Remove both images? --[[User:Sveika|Sveika]] ([[User talk:Sveika|talk]]) 16:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
: I think you're right, [[User:Sveika|Sveika]]. Pinging {{u|Anatomist90}}, the author of the images in question. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 06:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
== The Divided Brain ==
Right brain: broadly vigilant [[attention]]
Left brain: narrow-focused [[attention]] <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.94.37.27|84.94.37.27]] ([[User talk:84.94.37.27|talk]]) 00:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Pop psychology - opposite the truth ==
"Ironically these ideas held denote LHS as the 'logical brain' and RHS as the 'creative brain' which, even in the most generalized sense, is opposite the truth".
I see no evidence for the above statement anywhere. It has the smell of the halfbacked academics faddish taste for wanton and habitual iconoclasm.
Shouldn't it be removed or backed up with actual evidence? It disturbs and contradicts the whole article. [[User:Frisenette|Frisenette]] ([[User talk:Frisenette|talk]]) 09:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
:@[[User:Frisenette|Frisenette]]. Well, the "LHS = logical, RHS = creative" idea is clearly complete nonsense. That said, I doubt it's even coherent enough to be "opposite the truth". To be ''opposite the truth'' and not simply irrelevant noise, you need to have a pretty good hunch where the truth is to begin with, and then dutifully miss the target.
:There were two sources to that "opposite the truth" statement. I just deep-sixed the first one, on grounds that whoever wrote that "paper" was barely literate -- at least in English. The authors seem to be two students. The other source is a serious paper, and at a glance I find nothing in it directly supporting the quote. It concerns itself with more serious questions like language processing and handedness, and doesn't address or reference the pop-psy notion in any way that I can see.
:It would be nice to enlist an editor competent in neurosciences to go over this paragraph and either rework the statement or provide a more specific reference. Asking for help on relevant wikiprojects might be the best way forward. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 07:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::I just restored the reference you removed, albeit blindly. (I don't have handy access to the book.) An editor's opinion of the writing in a textbook by a major publisher does not negate its use. Scrapping it would be a [[WP:RSN]] issue. [[User:BiologicalMe|BiologicalMe]] ([[User talk:BiologicalMe|talk]]) 13:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}Dang-it all to heck, I just wasted 20 minutes dissecting choice quotes from the paper before realising you're right, I'm dissecting the WRONG paper. I blame the flu, it's making me bilaterally distracted. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 15:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:[[User:BiologicalMe|BiologicalMe]]: I cannot access that source. I have called for help on wikiproject neuroscience. Since this is not my field, there's not much else I can do. Thanks for catching my mistake in deleting that reference. (Thanks to a botched search and a brain bug, I confused the book with a terrible paper citing the book). — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 15:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::I feel for you. I haven't tackled the issue because I couldn't check the specific text. I don't like the phrase "opposite the truth" because it is ambiguous. Does it mean that there is lateralization in the reversed pattern or no lateralization? Get better soon. [[User:BiologicalMe|BiologicalMe]] ([[User talk:BiologicalMe|talk]]) 15:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the kind words. Combined with the opening "ironically", I 100% interpret the last sentence as "there is lateralization in the reversed pattern", (or, more charitably, "to the extent there ''is'' lateralisation, it is in the reversed pattern") which, if anything, is even more wrong than the original view, I think. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 16:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*Textbooks are not considered good sources for controversial statements. The sentence in question was introduced on April 1 in a large edit by {{user|XenusG}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lateralization_of_brain_function&diff=prev&oldid=713001678 diff]). A lot of material introduced in that edit is poorly written and problematic in meaning. In my opinion the sentence in question should be deleted unless much better sourcing can be found, and even then the wording of the sentence would need to be clarified. There are lots of other things in this article that need to be fixed as well. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 15:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks. I might remove the sentence after a while if nobody more qualified takes that step — but I won't be able to more constructively improve the article. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 16:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
== Interactions and Role ==
Many of the sources in the Interactions and Role section seem to be unrelated to the topic at hand. I've tagged one that was a study on rats (and not about lateralization), which was used as a source for the claim that many studies have shown brain differences between cultures. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.61.126.106|128.61.126.106]] ([[User talk:128.61.126.106#top|talk]]) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on [[Lateralization of brain function]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/815890200|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616080310/http://www.allea.org/Pages/ALL/4/881.bGFuZz1FTkc.pdf to http://www.allea.org/Pages/ALL/4/881.bGFuZz1FTkc.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 21:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
== A lot of work is needed to improve this article ==
This is the second paragraph of the article:
"''Lateralization of brain structures is based on general trends expressed in healthy patients; however, there are numerous counterexamples to each generalization. Each human’s brain develops differently leading to unique lateralization in individuals. This is different from specialization as lateralization refers only to the function of one structure divided between two hemispheres. Specialization is much easier to observe as a trend since it has a stronger anthropological history. The best example of an established lateralization is that of Broca's and Wernicke's areas where both are often found exclusively on the left hemisphere. These areas frequently correspond to handedness however, meaning the localization of these areas is regularly found on the hemisphere corresponding to the dominant hand (anatomically on the opposite side). Function lateralization such as semantics, intonation, accentuation, prosody, etc. has since been called into question and largely been found to have a neuronal basis in both hemispheres. Another example is that each hemisphere in the brain tends to represent one side of the body. In the cerebellum this is the same bodyside, but in the forebrain this is predominantly the contralateral side.''"
I find this to be completely impossible to understand.
In the phrase "there are numerous counterexamples to each generalization": Which generalization does this refer to? Nobody knows.
In the sentence "Each human’s brain develops differently leading to unique lateralization in individuals": Is this saying that all lateralizations are idiosyncratic? Really? So there are no generalizations that apply to almost all individuals, or at least almost all right-handed individuals? The article should be clear about what it is saying.
In the sentence "This is different from specialization as lateralization refers only to the function of one structure divided between two hemispheres": And "specialization means '''what'''?
In the sentence "Function lateralization such as semantics, intonation, accentuation, prosody, etc. has since been called into question and largely been found to have a neuronal basis in both hemispheres." But the first sentence of the entire article states: "The lateralization of brain function is the tendency for some neural functions or cognitive processes to be more dominant in one hemisphere than the other." This requires only '''greater dominance''' in one hemisphere than the other. So the phrase "largely been found to have a neuronal basis in both hemispheres" is '''irrelevant''' to refuting lateralization, since '''nothing''' is said about dominance one way or the other.
The last two sentences are: "Another example is that each hemisphere in the brain tends to represent one side of the body. In the cerebellum this is the same bodyside, but in the forebrain this is predominantly the contralateral side." The second sentence is an example of where the first sentence is '''false'''. Why???
:Having just read this page for the first time, I agree that a lot of improvement is needed. The very first sentence of the first section (after the lede) starts "For example,...". It's not at all clear what this is an example of - is it following on from the a previous statement made in the lede? I could have a stab at trying to restructure the article, and probably simplify the language for the benefit of lay readers, but I am not a subject matter expert. Is there anyone watching this page who would be prepared to assist and help me if I go wrong?[[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]] ([[User talk:Girth Summit|talk]]) 16:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
::@{{u|Girth Summit}} I can keep an eye out. Kudos for volunteering. --[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 09:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the offer Tom. I'll find some time to start working on it soon I hope...[[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]] ([[User talk:Girth Summit|talk]]) 08:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
::::I see you've already started making some improvements! Looks better already, your reordering makes it flow better. Quick question on the opening sentence - it currently says that the 'neural functions or cognitive processes are specialized to one side of the brain...'. Is this common usage in the field? In normal usage we'd say that a thing is specializing in a particular function, rather than the function specializing 'to' the thing. Also, I can't find any examples of the verb 'specialize' being used like this (with the preposition 'to') - you would normally specialize in, specialize at, or specialize for something. I don't want to change it if this is common usage in the field which I'm unfamiliar with, but I'd probably reword to something like:
::::The lateralization of brain function is the tendency one or other side of the brain to specialize in particular neural functions or cognitive processes.
::::What do you think? (I promise not to consult you about every single sentence in future - but since this is the opening sentence, I thought I'd better test the waters first...)[[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]] ([[User talk:Girth Summit|talk]]) 17:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::Yikes - I think I'm getting in over my head. I've just done some work on the 'Language' section, trying to remove unsourced and off-topic material and clear up the language. That section seemed to make it clear that speech production was predominantly left-lateralised. Moving on, I started reading through the 'Hemisphere damage' section, which talks almost exclusively about how damage to the right hemisphere affects speech production. The apparent contradiction will be confusing to the general reader and, assuming it's accurate, really ought to be contextualised; however, the 'Hemisphere damage' is entirely unsourced. I don't want to just cut out an entire section despite the lack of source, but I don't feel qualified to research the discrepancy and reword. What's your background Tom - do you know the subject matter well enough to discuss?[[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]] ([[User talk:Girth Summit|talk]]) 18:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
== Learning styles ==
Hi {{ping|Luveviolet}}, I just wanted to touch on the edit you recently made, which [[user:Flyer22_Reborn|Flyer22_Reborn]] reverted. I noticed that the text you inserted referred to individuals' learning styles several times, and that the sources were fairly old (early 2000s). As described in [[Learning styles|our article]] on them, the concept individuals having particular learning styles is somewhat controversial, and my understanding is that the accepted position in up-to-date educational psychology scholarship is that they don't. I have some books on the shelf I could dig out to provide references for this if needs be. As Flyer22 said, I think the language would have to be softened, and more recent sources would shed some light on whether anyone still stands by these theories. Cheers [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 18:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
==Criticism section==
::"Function lateralization, such as semantics, intonation, accentuation, and prosody, has since been called into question and largely been found to have a neuronal basis in both hemispheres."
It would be useful to have a proper, referenced and thorough criticism section / update of this model. It already states that much pop psychology has run with the idea of over-simipfications of hemispheric functions. Much more is needed. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Anna Roy|Anna]] ([[User talk:Anna Roy|talk]])</span> 20:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
== Is it possible to add this image by M. Gazzaniga? ==
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/5559555/b071316.gif Is it possible to use this image by M. Gazzaniga into this article?
[[User:RIT RAJARSHI|RIT RAJARSHI]] ([[User talk:RIT RAJARSHI|talk]]) 15:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
== Right/left brain ==
Studies agree that as nonverbal cues are sent and received, they are more strongly influenced by modules of the right-side neocortex (esp. in right-handed individuals) than they are by left-sided modules. Anatomically, this is reflected a. in the greater volume of [[white matter]] in the right neocortical hemisphere, and b. in the greater volume of [[grey matter]] in the left. The right brain's superior fiber linkages enable its [[neuron]]s to better communicate with [[feeling]]s, [[memory|memories]], and [[sense]]s, thus giving this side its deeper-reaching holistic, nonverbal, and "big picture" skills. The left brain's superior neuronal volume, meanwhile, allows for better communication among the neocortical neurons themselves, which gives this side a greater analytic and intellectually narrower "focus". Research by UCLA neuroscientist, [[Daniel Geschwind]] and colleagues shows that left-handers have more symmetric brains, due to genetic control. [[Special:Contributions/84.94.37.73|84.94.37.73]] ([[User talk:84.94.37.73|talk]]) 10:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-01-08">8 January 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-04-25">25 April 2020</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/BYUIdaho/Cognitive_Psychology_(Winter)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Mrs. Yelnats|Mrs. Yelnats]].
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 08:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Inadequate images and captions ==
I think images being presented as examples of counterfactual information are confusing, especially if the original context of the image is not heavily emphasised. Furthermore, simply presenting an example of an image containing factoids without detailing or even indicating which aspects of the image are correct (e.g. the depiction of the brain as having two hemispheres), which aspects have some merit (e.g. intuitive thought in the right hemisphere), which aspect are straight up wrong (e.g. random sequencing in the right hemisphere) and which aspects are not only wrong but also plain nonsense (e.g. creative writing in the right hemisphere - I'd like to see someone write a novel without using language - and I mean a traditional novel, nothing avant-garde) doesn't actually give any real information to people who do not already have it. [[User:Anditres|Anditres]] ([[User talk:Anditres|talk]]) 04:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Psychology Honors==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Paradise_Valley_Community_College/Introduction_to_Psychology_Honors_(Fall_2023) | assignments = [[User:Ph1275|Ph1275]], [[User:MinnieMollet3|MinnieMollet3]], [[User:18roo|18roo]] | reviewers = [[User:Mirmir77|Mirmir77]], [[User:AstroWiki143|AstroWiki143]], [[User:Soccernumber1|Soccernumber1]], [[User:Inferior12|Inferior12]], [[User:Birdie2324|Birdie2324]], [[User:Addisonel|Addisonel]], [[User:ThunderhillMc|ThunderhillMc]], [[User:TheBrapHeardAroundTheWorld|TheBrapHeardAroundTheWorld]] | start_date = 2023-08-21 | end_date = 2023-12-15 }}
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:TheOneCheese|TheOneCheese]] ([[User talk:TheOneCheese|talk]]) 19:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
== Possible Unreliable Source? ==
Schroeder, Thomas (15 July 2023). "Left-Brain, Right-Brain Reconceptualized: A New Neuroscientific Understanding of an Old Divide". Medium.
This source is quoted three times but is simply a medium post by someone with no actual expertise in neuroscience, in the very article cited they're selling a book that claims to teach you to "develop both sides of the brain’s neocortex". Considering that the author has a vested financial interest in their claim being true and has no apparent quailification, I think it's odd that they would be cited instead of directly citing the article by Elkhonon Goldberg (who by all accounts is an expert in this field of study). This is especially strange seeing as the Schroeder medium post relies entirely on the Goldberg article. I understand wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources but a more reputable one would be preferable. [[User:Darkpixelftw|Darkpixelftw]] ([[User talk:Darkpixelftw|talk]]) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed. The Medium article falls into the same old pop-science trap of wildly extrapolating neuroscientific theories into broad descriptions of the patterns of peoples behaviour, despite no evidence actually being given to link the two together (or even that such variations corresponding with left/right-brainedness even exist in the first place!). Despite claiming to be a more nuanced understanding, it still presupposes the existance of left- and right-brained peoplem, and uses the authority of Elkhonon Goldberg to argue for points not supported by his research. [[User:FChlo|FChlo]] ([[User talk:FChlo|talk]]) 11:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
== Hemispheric Asymmetry ==
Many sweeping generalizations have been made about right and left hemisphere function which are hard to justify. One such claim is that the left hemisphere is specialized for local, detailed, serial processing, whereas the right hemisphere is more specialized for global, holistic, parallel processing. [[User:תיל"ם|תיל"ם]] ([[User talk:תיל"ם|talk]]) 14:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
==Wiki Education assignment: BIOL 3358 Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Temple_University/BIOL_3358_Cellular_and_Molecular_Neuroscience_(Spring) | assignments = [[User:Pndakip|Pndakip]] | reviewers = [[User:K.P.Neuro|K.P.Neuro]] | start_date = 2025-01-14 | end_date = 2025-04-28 }}
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Plantsvszombiesenthusiast|Plantsvszombiesenthusiast]] ([[User talk:Plantsvszombiesenthusiast|talk]]) 14:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)</span>
== Possible New Content ==
Hello! I'm finished with my edits for my Wiki Education assignment. I wanted to give an outline of some recommended improvements for this article:
1) Add sections under lateralized functions for visuospatial processing, theory of mind, and "The Interpreter" hypothesis (which I think is what "Value Systems" is trying to explain).
2) More sources for lateralization of language.
3) Add small section about handedness + its relation to language (maybe within the motor system section).
4) Evolutionary basis of lateralization + other animals
5) Developmental and genetic basis of lateralized functions
[[User:Pndakip|Pndakip]] ([[User talk:Pndakip|talk]]) 14:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
| |||