BULLETIN OF THE LOS ANGELES NEUROLOGICAL SOCIETY
VOL. 34, NO. 4, October, 1969 ,pages191-220.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRAIN III: THE CORPUS

CALLOSUM AND CREATIVITY

1. Introduction.

2. Our present knowledge of the neocommissures.

3. Phylogenetic lateralization of the two modes of thought.

4. The incompleteness of interhemispheric exchange.

5. The "highest" cerebral functions.

6. The lack of creativity.

7. Acknowledgements.

8. Bibliography.

9. Author index.

In Part I the lateral dissociation of dysgraphia and dyscopia following cerebral commissurotomy was described, and was interpreted as evidence for right hemisphere dominance with respect to certain non-language functions. In Part II, this view was enlarged to the more generalized notion of two different modes of thought, propositional and appositional, which tend to dominate the mental activities of the left and right hemispheres respectively. The idea of two types of thinking was then combined with Wigan's proposal of two independent minds. These, in the light of our present knowledge, are seen to be not duplicate but complementary. This hypothesis implies that having two modes of thought so segregated is advantageous, depending on the extent to which the corpus callosum mediates the ideational as well as the sensori-motor gap between the two sides of the cerebrum. Put differently, possession of two independent problem-solving organs increases the prospects of a successful solution to a novel situation although it has the hazard of conflict in the event of different solutions. Part III will elaborate upon this question, including a few nonneurologic but relevant opinions of others.

The central location and the large size of the corpus callosum, especially in the human, certainly suggest an important role in mentation. As McCulloch and Garol (281) put it in 1941:

"The corpus callosum and anterior commissure constitute a fibre system larger than the sum of all systems ascending to and descending from the cerebral hemispheres.....little is known of its function. Apart from symptoms referable to lesions of adjacent structures, tumors and softenings and surgical sections have failed to produce any characteristic disorders except, possibly, impairment of coordination of the hemispheres in complicated symbolic activity."

This "complicated symbolic activity" had been inferred from the apraxia, agnosia, etc. occasionally observed by neurologists in the fifty years preceding the review by Sweet (282) in 1941. [there was some experimental support though overlooked for more than thirty years, Bykov and Speransky (282a) had reported that callosal section prevented transfer of a conditioned reflex from one forepaw to the other.}

Between the time when Sweet wrote his review and the time of its publication, there appeared the first reports by Akelaitis and co-workers (283-302) describing surgical division of the corpus callosum by Van Wagenen, and reporting the psychological effects as being quite minimal. Sweet added a footnote:

No postmortem studies have yet been reported, but there was no reason to doubt the surgeon's report of the extent of section, since the structures in question are usually easy to see. [{however,when MRI became widely available it turned out that supposedly complete callosotomies were often not complete. It is therefore of particular importance that our commissurotomies( the Vogel-Bogen series) were shown to have complete callosotomies: :Bogen,Schultz and Vogel,1988}]. Because it was believed that the Van Wagenen callosotomies were complete, even "complicated symbolic activity" seemed to be ruled out by the studies on Van Wagenen's patients. By 1944, McCulloch (303) was reduced to say of the corpus callosum:

"It has been severed frequently in monkey and man, but tests of sufficient delicacy or scope to detect any alteration in behavior are still wanting."

Tomasch (304) said in 1954 of the Akelaitis studies:

When Bremer, Brihaye and Andre-Balisaux (305) extensively reviewed the corpus callosum in 1956, they insisted that this "voluminous interhemispheric commissure cannot possibly be unrelated to the incessant work of synthesis of our perception...". And they took heart from the experiments of Myers and Sperry (306) just then being published, which showed a role of the corpus callosum in the transfer of learning from one hemisphere to the other.

As late as 1961, Glees wrote (somewhat wistfully):

But Glees took note of the experiments of Myers and Sperry, and he also agreed that the corpus callosum, "is the means whereby the two hemispheres can share and profit by each other's experience."

It is reasonable to suppose that after cutting the corpus callosum, we might learn something of its function by observing postoperative behavior. It turns out that this is not so easy; especially devised testing techniques we might learn something of its function. It turns out that this is not so easy; especially devised testing technics are required before the split brain can be shown to have any peculiarities. Using special tests, Myers and Sperry showed that the two hemispheres could function independently. Many others have done similar experiments(308-320); and it is now certain that the commissures can transfer information from one hemisphere to the other. But these experiments do not yet tell us what information is ordinarily transferred under normal circumstances. The demonstration that each half of an animal's split-brain can be separately conditioned is dependent upon restriction of input to one hemisphere; in the case of visual testing, this usually involves a prior division of the optic chiasm as well as a temporary occlusion of one eye. However illuminating they may be, these experiments do not show us the function of the corpus callosum in the normal animal in natural surroundings. We might hope that this not altogether satisfactory state of knowledge would have benefited from the testing of human beings, now that the patients operated by Professor Vogel have been studied intensively and ingeniously under the aegis of Professor Sperry.

The demonstration of a "split-brain syndrome" in the patients of Vogel and Bogen contrasts with the largely negative impression left by the Van Wagenen series. This discrepancy has several sources: first, variations in age of the patients, and differences in amount and time of extracallosal damage produce variations in the syndrome of hemisphere deconnexion, so there is considerable room for argument as to which cases are more representative. Akelaitis, for example, appeared less impressed with callosal symptoms in the articles he authored alone, as compared with the lesser-known articles co-authored with Van Wagenen. Also, there has been a revolution in testing techniques. But results within the past year make it clear that the greatest difference between the Van Wagenen and Vogel series is the completeness of section. In the Van Wagenen series, totaling 28 patients, only one had division (in two stages) of the entire corpus callosum and anterior commissure. Of the Vogel series, 12 patients studied psychologically, all had a complete section at a single operation. The importance of small callosal remnants has been made clear by studies of two further patients operated by Vogel, in which a posterior portion of the corpus callosum was deliberately spared in the hope (so far confirmed) of ameliorating seizures while at the same time minimizing the psychologieal deficits. In spite of exhaustive studies (321), neither of these patients ean be shown to have the transfer deficits characteristic of patients with complete section. [This remarkable contrast between the "complete" and the "near-complete" splits applies to patients having surgery for epilepsy. When partial callosal injury occurs in the course of progressive vascular or neoplastic disease (322-324), the deficits are more like those of the complete surgical section. Also, congenital absence of the corpus callosum is an apparent exception to the usual split-brain syndrome (325).]

Apparently the posterior-fourth of the corpus callosum, if left intact, can prevent the appearance of the entire disconnexion syndrome as now conceived. [{3o years of additional investigation have not materially changed this general conclusion although there are cases in which changes have been produced in dichotic listening tests and transfer of tactile information. See Bogen 1993 and Zaidel, Zaidel and Bogen for further discussion.}].

For the remainder (about 150 million nerve fibers) no more is known now than 25 years ago. [{ We are beginning to get some hints about function of the more anterior portions but for the most part we are still confronted by the "genu enigma" ( so-called in my revue of 1993) i.e. the lack of substantial deficits after genu section}].

Our advantage [{ this was in 1969, and is still true in 1998}] in speculating on their function is our present recognition that the hemispheres are not as much "major" and "minor" as that they are complementary, and that each hemisphere is capable of thinking on its own, in its own way.

"...rule out any theory of purely random evolution such as the rather naive mutationism that had considerable support earlier in the twentieth century . . . the direction of morphological (hence also functional and behavioral) change in a given lineage often continues without significant deviation for long periods of time . . ." (326).

We can reasonably assume that hemispheric asymmetry had an adaptive value long before the emergence of reading and writing, perhaps before the emergence of organized language. [{ anatomical hemispheric assymetry has been shown apes, and f¨nctional assymetry of the cerebral hewmispheres has by now been well established in monkeys by Hamilton and Vermeire}]. This supposition gives special meaning to Hebb's opinion that:

"speech arises as the end product of a phylogenetic increase in the ability to entertain independent ideas or trains of thought at the same time," (327).

The advantage of hemispheric asymmetry seems most obvious in man, but similar advantage could also obtain for other animals. Although speech apparently arose in the hominid line long after it diverged from the apes (329), this need not be so for hemispheric asymmetry in general. Asymmetry of hemispheric function may have had its rudimentary beginnings almost anywhere along the

line of mammalian evolution. With a few exceptions (330-333) studies of hemispheric differences in rats, cats or monkeys have largely been restricted to investigation of forepaw preference (334-339). We may suppose that it will be possible to show hemispheric specialization in sub-human primates,[{ see above}] since we now know that language can develop (without speech) in apes as well as humans. [{a recent discussion is in Vermeire and Hamilton,1998 ,on hemispheric asymmetry in the monkey with the right hemisphere better for configural processing of faces. The ability of apes to use symbolic comm¨nication is now well established but the consensus among linguists at present(1999) is that these abilities do not reach the syntactic richness typical of human language}]. In spite of heroic efforts, it has not been possible to teach chimpanzees to speak (340, 341); but the Gardners (342) have recently shown the feasibility of teaching a chimpanzee sign language.[{again the possession of signs is not the same as the possession of sign language}]. It would be of the greatest interest to know if this sign language [{sic}] capacity in the chimpanzee is lateralized. In any event, it is now reasonably clear that "symbolic formulation and expression" need not be linked to speech. This was, in fact, expected by the Gardners bceause of the emerging realization that the development of speech was less dependent on changes in the brain than on the appearance of certain anatomical peculiarities of the jaw and throat (34>345) . [{There has been an immense amount of teaching symbol usage to subhuman primates since this OSOB series was written, leaving the overall impression that the linguistic properties of phonology, morphophonemics and syntax are largely absent from chimp and gorilla use of symbols ,remarkable as that may be . On the other hand, it is now clear that human sign language, such as Ameslan, is lateralized in much the same way as other language ability; see e.g. Bellugi, Klima and coworkers}].

4. The incompleteness of interhemispheric exchange

Failure of information transfer from one hemisphere to the other is typical of the split-brain; and this is usually contrasted with the function of the intact brain. When the information consists of spatial discriminative data the contrast is greatest. Every patient with a complete cerebral commissurotomy fails to name an unseen object in the left hand, although recognition by the right hemisphere is obvious from the ability of the left hand to retrieve the test object when it is dropped into a bag containing a large number of similar objects.[{experience has lead us to use apaper plate instead of a bag; metal or china plates provide auditory cues}]. Every such patient fails to replicate, with one hand, complicated postures imposed on the other. There is a wide variety of such defects in interhemispheric transfer (12) following commissural section. In contrast, such information transfers readily in the normal condition.

The inability of the corpus callosum to perfect interhemispheric transfer is obvious in acquired skills such as writing. Asymmetry of learning is not restricted to propositional skills; it also appears in the attempt to perform with the left hand other tasks acquired originally in the right hand.

"This outcome indicates a much closer funetional linkage between the uncrossed and crossed visual interpretative systems within the hemisphere, than occurs transcallosally between the uncrossed visual spheres of the two separate hemispheres" (p. 66).

Lack of transfer might be likely for a task involving sequential finger movements, as in the palpation of variously shaped objeets. When Semmes and Mishkin (350) studied transfer of a spatial form diserimination from one hand to another in monkeys, they noted in passing that "even a normal animal

A recent experiment in the monkey by S. R. Butler (353) showed in a dramatic way the weakness of interhemispheric connections compared with those within each hemisphere. Butler trained a monkey to choose either a cube or a sphere by feel with the left hand, depending on whether the monkey saw in its right visual field a green or a red light. That is, the tactile area of the right hemisphere and the visual area of the left hemisphere were required to work together. As might be expected, when the brain was split by section of the corpus callosum and anterior commissure this interaction did not take place. What is pertinent to this discussion is another experiment in which the commissural connections were left intact. Knowing that the right tactile and the left visual area could only interact through the commissures, Butler supposed that these relatively weak eonnections were laboring under the handicap of receiving irrelevant information from the neighboring areas of the same hemisphere. He therefore removed surgically the right visual and the left tactile areas from several monkeys, leaving intact the left visual and right tactile areas and their callosal connections. These monkeys learned the problem faster than normal! This amazing result is most important in showing how certain brain functions may be independent of or even inversely related to brain mass. It also illustrates how intrahemispherie influences can interfere with interhemispheric collaboration.

A particularly clear example of failure of eallosal transfer is the training of a single hemisphere in the rat while the other hemisphere is subjected to spreading depression. Leao (354) found that certain stimuli would cause a wave of depression to spread over the cortex, abolishing not only the spontaneous eleetrieal aetivity but also the usual cortical responses to sensory input. He ealled this "cortical spreading depression" (CSD). The subjeet has been extensively reviewed by Marshall (355) and by Ochs (356).

t See ref. 361 for an unusual eontrary result.

isphre has certain learning experienees at a time when the other hemisphere does not, the acquired behavior may not transfer even though the commissures are intaet.

Bures and Buresova and their colleagues have continued to use CSD in a long series of informative experiments. A recent one is partieularly enlightening: they trained rats one method of escape (A) while the right hemisphere was rendered inactive by the method of cortieal spreading depression. They then trained the rats in a different method (B) with the left hemisphere depressed. They then tested the rats under conditions requiring simultaneous use, in combination, of the two different methods (A, B). The rats rapidly solved the combination problem. Control rats were trained without depression, that is with both hemispheres working together in a normal way. These rats learned method A and subsequently method B quite quiekly; but they could not solve the combined problem much better than rats which had had no previous training at all. Apparently then, the acquisition in sequence of two contrasting tasks by the intaet animal leads to reversal learning in whieh the first learned response is inhibited as the seeond response is being formed. But the lateralized aequisition of eontrasting information does not neeessarily result in interferenee, thus leaving the animal with eaeh lesson in its respective hemisphere. Sueh a situation could easily lead to internal confliet; but it is also apparently more eonducive to rapid learning in novel or complex situations. As Bures and Buresova say:

"(the presenee of) the independent and undated engrams creates thus, at least in some behavioral situations, better conditions for a 'creative' combination of previous experiences than the usual sequential learning."

The differential lateralization of learning in the rat with commissures intaet has required for its demonstration an ingenious experimental method. However, differential lateralization in the human is an everyday, common-plaee event whieh is less dependent on the cireumstanees of learning than on an intrinsic asymmetry of function arising out of a long term trend during millions of years of evolution.

Professor F. Bremer wrote several years ago:

"It is now obvious that the funetioning of the corpus callosum is assoeiated with the highest and most elaborate activities of the brain." (363)

The human who has had a cerebral commissurotomy shows little change in personality and ordinary behavior. Evidently then, the preoperative behavior of these patients did not include what Bremer called, "The highest and most elaborate activities." . What might these be?

"The writer depends neeessarily upon evoking nonverbal images to verbal means. .." (364).

There is an abundance of such statements; for example, Stephen Spender described poetic invention as beginning with:

". . . a dim cloud of an idea which I feel must be condensed into a shower of words" (365).

Spender described the origin of a particular poem as follows:

Turning from literary to mathematical creativity, we recall the well known observations of Poincare:

"Most striking at first is this appearanee of sudden illumination, a manifest sign of long, unconscious prior work. The role of this unconscious work in mathematieal invention appears to me incontestable...it never happens that the unconscious work gives us the result of a somewhat long calculation all made, where we have only to apply fixed rules.... All one may hope from these inspirations, fruits of unconscious work, is a point of departure for such caleulations. As for the ealeulations themselves.... They require discipline, attention, will and therefore consciousness. In the subliminal self, on the contrary, reigns what I should call liberty, if we might give this name to the simple absence of diseipline and to the disorder born of chance. Only, this disorder itself permits unexpected combinations...we vaguely comprehend [{ indeed ! }] what distinguishes the two mechanisms, or, if you wish, the working methods of the two egos...." (367).

When Jacques Hadamard (368) asked Einstein to describe his own creativity in action, Einstein replied:

"The physical entities whieh seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images . . . [in] combinatory play . . .

The above-mentioned elements are, in my case, of visual and some of muscular type.

Conventional words or other signs have to be sought for laboriously only in a seeondary stage, when the above mentioned associative play is sufficiently established and can be reproduced at will...."

F. A. Long (369) wrote of Peter Debye, Nobel Laureate in chemistry:

"Although one automatically thinks of Debye as a theorist (the Debye law of specific heat; and so on), his approach to problems was not fundamentally a mathematical one. He was a model-builder. In discussing a new theory his first question usually was, 'What is your picture?' ".

Interhemispherio oollaboration need not be restrioted to verbal-visuospatial interaction; since the the right hemiphere has a speoial oapaoity for tonal, timbre and other aspects of music, interhemispheric communication could clearly contribute to musical creativity. In addition to the evidence for a right hemisphere role in music revieved in OSOB Part II, we have recently had several opportunifies, together with Harold Gordon, to record singing before, during and after paralysis of the right hemisphere by carotid amytal injection in persons known to be right-handed. During the time when the left limbs were paralyzed, articulation was intelligible although slurred and the rhythm was preserved, but the singing was essentially amelodic, that is, with relatively few changes in pitch. [{ see Bogen,JE and Gordon,H in Nature 230:524-5,1971 and Gordon,HW and Bogen,JE in J.Neurol.,Neurosurg. and Psychiat. 37:727-738,1974 }].

Indeed, we can easily entertain the notion that artistic creativity in general benefits from interhemispheric collaboration.

According to Jung:

A compilation of such apposite remarks and opinions could be extended indefinitely. It will suffice to conclude with a revealing quotation from a recent book by Bruner (371).

If oreativity is dependent, in part, on a transcallosal interhemispheric exchange, there are some obvious explanations for its absenoe. There may be first of all a defiocienocy in technical competence in a suitable medium; in the case of literary as well as mathematioal oreativity this is easily seen as a lack of propositional skill. Alajouanine (372) averred, to conceive is nothing, to express is alL He meant by this that pleasing musical schemes and poetical images arise in the minds of many people who have not acquired the means for their expression.

There are many persons possessing technical proficiency in music, drawing,

" Many elements deeper in the brain centers must discharge only in very special activities, and, if these activities are not exercised—especially during maturational stages when the neurons seem to be partieularly dependent on use—the neuron types involved may regress, leaving profound functional deficiencies in the integrative machinery" (375).

We are accustomed to hear, these days, of the "culturally disadvantaged," those persons whose propositional potential has remained undeveloped for lack of proper schooling. There is likely a parallel lack of appositional development in persons whose only education consists of reading, writing and arithmetic.

Third, there must be a sufficiently free interchange between propositional and appositional modes. Rombauer (376) says of a certain pancake recipe, "Only a strongly intuitive person on speaking terms with his imagination has a chance of success."

Henry Moore opined:

"All good art has contained both abstract and surrealist elements, just as it has contained both classical and romantic elements—order and surprise, intellect and imagination, conscious and unconscious." (377).

"While it is at work, the mind is constantly going and coming from Self to Other; what its innermost being produces is modified by a peculiar awareness of the judgment of others" (380).

And Valery emphasized one of the major obstacles, an excess of analysis:

"All that we can define is at once set off from the producing mind, in opposition to it. The mind turns whatever it defines into matter it can work on, or a tool it can work with. Whatever it has clearly defined, the mind places out of its own reach, and in so doing, shows that it knows itself and that it trusts only what is not itself."

Steven Spender said:

"For there are examples enough to show...that the poetic imagination is harmed by absorbing more intellectual knowledge than it can digest" (381).

Henry Moore put it bluntly:

"It is a mistake for a sculptor or a painter to speak or write very often about his job. It releases tension needed for his work."

It is not merely talking too much that inhibits intuition; it is rather an excessive emphasis on the rational proposition as a criterion of understanding. From his interview with Joan Miro, Fifield (382) coneluded that artistic creativity is, "the yield of not-think". Fifield quoted Miro:

"The work comes out of the unconscious, that is certain. You recognize if it is good or not.... If you have a preconception, any notion of where you are going, you will never get anywhere."

"Da Vinci said that. He said you have to go up a tunnel backwards"

"You do. You musn't watch yourself."

Creativity has not only made the human species unique in Nature; what is more important for the individual, it gives value and purpose to human existence. Creativity requires more than technieal skills and logical thought; it also needs the cultivation and collaboration of the appositional mind. If the constraint of an intellectual ideal can make man a unilateral being, physiologically underdeveloped, a better informed and foresighted community will strive toward a more harmonious development of the organism by assuring an appropriate training and a greater consideration for the other side of the brain.

This paper is but one of many whieh have grown out of the human split-brain projeet. The projeet in both its therapeutie and investigative aspeets has required the eontinuing eooperation of the patients and their families, especially Mr. and Mrs. W. B. Jenkins. And it has been possible only because of the skill, unselfish interest and unvarying patience of Professor Philip J. Vogel.

The views expressed herein necessarily reflect the inspiration of many teachers including: Esther Bogen, Emil Bogen, J. B. Tietz, P. H. Wells, L. Pauling, P. Palmer, P. D. Bartlett, C. K. Weichert, M. Grotjahn, R. M. Redheffer, C. Hyman, D. Drury, H. W. Magoun, J. D. French, C. W. Foster, X. Machne, T. Brem, F. Moore, C. J. Berne, P. V. Lee, S. W. Moore, B. Ray, V. Marshall, A.

van Harreveld, C. B. Courville, C. W. Olsen, K. H. Abbott, A. Tueker, P. Seeger, R. Lert, W. H. Holleran, and espeeially Mrs. Jo Jordan.

Although they are in no way responsible for the mode of presentation, many eolleagues and friends have contributed to the ideas expressed in this paper. These include: R. E. Myers, E. D. Lawrence, J. B. Gilbert, E. Cahow, M. Gickstein, F. Russell, D. Spinelli, M. S. Gazzaniga, C:. Trevarthen, T. Voneida, G. W. Domhoff, G. Berlucchi, S. Giaquinto, U. Norsell, J. Levy, R. Nebes, H. Gordon, R. Saul, W. Serbin, B. Wicker, and M. Francis.

Generous assistance was provided by Mrs. Susan Abbott of the White Memorial Library; Mrs. Gladys Martin, Miss Ruth Gardner, Mrs. Elaine Ticknor and Miss Joyce Miyaji of the Ross-Loos Medieal Group; and by Mr. J. M. Connor and his staff, including Miss H. Tibbs, of the LACMA Library.

Specific improvements in the manuscripts came from S. R. Butler, B. Campbell, B. U. Chung, K. Hayes, G. Hunt, A. Kilp, A. Smith, R. W. Sperry, and the editor, R. D. Walter.

[{ the biblio has not been corrected,as has been the text, for errors produced by the process of OCR }]

1. Bogen, J. E., and Vogel, P. J.: Cerebral eommissurotomy in man. Preliminary ease report. Bull. Los Angeles Neurol. Soe., 27:169-172, 1962.

2. Bogen, J. E., and Vogel, P. J.: Treatment of generalized seizures by eerebral eommissurotomy. Surg. Forum, 14 :431-433, 1963.

3. Bogen, J. E., Fisher, E. D., and Vogel, P. J.: Cerebral eommissurotomy: A second ease report. J. Amer. Med. Assoe., 194:1328 1329, 1965.

4. Bogen, J. E., Sperry, R. W., and Vogel, P. J.: Commissural Section and the Propagation of Seizures. In Basic Mechanisms of the Epilepsies. Jasper, H. H., Ward, A. A., and Pope, A. eds. Little, Brown; Boston; 1969.

5. Gazzaniga, M. S., Bogen, J. E., and Sperry, R. W.: Some funetional effeets of seetioning the eerebral eommissures in man. Proe. Nat. Aead. Sei., 48:1765 9, 1962.

6. Gazzaniga, M. S., Bogen, J. E., and Sperry, R. W.: Observations on visual pereeption after diseonneetion of the eerebral hemispheres in man. Brain, 88 :221-236, 1965.

7. Bogen, J. E., and Gazzaniga, M. S.: Cerebral eommissurotomy in man: Minor hemisphere dominanee for eertain visuospatial funetions. J. Neurosurg., 23 :394-399, 1965.

8. Gazzaniga, M. S., Bogen, J. E., and Sperry, R. W.: Laterality effeets in somesthesis following eerebral eommissurotomy in man. Neuropsychologia, 1 :209-215, 1963.

10. Sperry, R. W., and Gazzaniga, M. S.: Language Following Surgical Disconnection of the Hemispheres. in, Darley, F. L. (ed.): Brain Mechanisms UnderlZviny Speech and Languagze, Grune and Stratton; New York; 1966.

11. Gazzaniga, M. S., and Sperry, R. W.: Language after seetion of the eerebral eommissures. Brain, 90:131-148, 1967.

12. Sperry, R. W., Gazzaniga, M. S., and Bogen, J. E.: Role of the neoeortical eommissures. in, P. J. Vinken and G. W. Bruyn, eds. Handbook of Clinical Neurologv, Vol. IV, North Holland Pub.; Amsterdam; 1969.

13. Gazzaniga, M. S., and Sperry, R. W.: Simultaneous double diserimination response following brain biseetion. Psyehon. Sei., 4 :261-262, 1966.

14. Gazzaniga, M. S.: The split-brain in man. Sei. Amer., 217 :24-29, 1967.

15. Gazzaniga, M. S.: Short-term memory and brain-biseeted man. Psyehon. Sei., 12:161162, 1968.

16. Butler, S. R., and Norr}ell, U.: Voealization possibly indieated by the minor hemisphere. Nature, 220:793-794, 1968.

17. Bogen, J. E.: The corpus callosum, the other side of the brain, and pharmaeologie opportunity. In, Smith, W. L. ed. Druys and Cerebral Funetion. Thomas; Springfield, I11.; 1969.

18. Levy-Agresti, J.: Ipsilateral projeetion systems and minor hemisphere funetion in man after neoeommissurotomy. Anat. Reeord, 160: 384, 1968.

19. Sperry, R. W.: The great eerebral eommissure. Sei. Amer., 210:42-52, 1964.

20. Sperry, R. W.: Problems outstanding in the evolution of brain funetion. James Arthur Leeture, Ameriean Museum of Natural History; New York; 1964.

21. Sperry, R. W.: Brain biseetion and meehanisms of eonseiousness. Pp. 442-468 in Semaine d'Etude Sur Cerveau et Experience Consciente. J. Eeeles, ed. Pontifieae Aead. Seient. Seripta varia, Rome, 1965.

22. Sperry, R. W.: Hemisphere deeonneetion and unity in eonseious awareness. Amer. Psyehologist, 23:723-733, 1968.

23. Sperry, R. W.: Mental unity following surgieal diseonneetion of the eerebral hemispheres. Harvey Leetures, Series 62. N.Y.; Aeademie Press; 1968.

24. Milner, B., Taylor, L., and Sperry, R. W.: Lateralized suppression of diehotically presented digits after eommissural seetion in man. Seienee, 161: 184-6, 1968.

25. Nebes, R. D., and Sperry, R. W.: Variations in human eerebral eommissurotomy syndrome with early injury in the dominant arm area. Anat. Reeord. (In press).

26. Gordon, H. W., and Sperry, R. W.: Lateralization of olfaetory pereeption in the surgically separated hemispheres of man. Neuropsychologia, 7:111-120, 1969.

27. Levy-Agresti, J., and Sperry, R. W.: Differential pereeptual eapaeities in major and minor hemispheres. Proe. Nat. Aead. Sei., 61 :1151, 1968.

28. Critehley, M.: The parietal lobes. E. Arnold; London; 1953. (Reprinted by Hafner; N.Y.; 1966).

29. Critehley, M.: The enigma of Gerstmann's syndrome. Brain, 89:183-198, 1966.

30. Critehley, M.: Aphasiologieal nomenelature and definitions. Cortex, 3:3-25, 1967.

31. Smith, A., and Burklund, C. W.: Dominant hemisphereetomy: Preliminary report on neurologieal sequelae. Seienee, 153:128>1282, 1966.

32. Smith, A.: Speeeh and other funetions after left (dominant) hemisphreetomy. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psyehiat., 29:467-471, 1966.

33. Smith, A.: Nondominant hemisphereetomy. Neurology, 19: 442-445, 1969.

34. Zangwill, O. L.: Speeeh and the minor hemisphere. Aeta Neurol. Psyehiat. Belgiea., 67: 1013-1020, 1967.

35. Broca, P.: Remarks on the Seat of the Facult1y of Articulate Language, Followed bv an Observation of Aphemia. In Bonin, G. von, tr.: Some Papers on the Cerebral Cortex, Springfield, III., C.C. Thomas, 1960.

36. Trousseau, De L'aphasie, maladie deerite reeemment sous le nom impropre d'aphemie. Gaz. des Hopitaux, 37:13-14, 1864.

37. Critehley, M.: Dax's law. Int. J. Neurol., 4: 199-206, 1964.

38. Joynt, R. J. and Benton, A. L.: The memoir of Mare Dax on aphasia. Neurology 14: 851-854, 1964.

39. Ogle, W.: Aphasia and agraphia. St. George's Hosp. Reports, 2:83-122, 1867.

40. Heeaen, H. Angelergues, R., and Douzenis, J. A.: Les Agraphies. Neuropsyehologia, 1:179-208, 1963.

41. Goldstein, K.: LanSuage and Languaye Disturbances. P. 129. Grune and Stratton; New York; 1948.

42. Bing. R.: Compendium of regional diagnosis in lesions of the brain and spinal eord. Haymaker, W. ed. C. V. Mosby; St. Louis; 1940.

43. Jaekson, J. H.: Selected Writings of John Huahlings Jackson. P. 130. Edited by J. Taylor. New York, Basic Books, 1958.

43a. Nielsen, J. M.: Agnosia, apraxia, aphasia. 2nd Ed. p. 258 Hoeber; New York; 1946.

44. Pitres A.: Considerations sur l'agraphie. Rev. de. Med., 4:855-873, 1884.

45. Herrmann G., and Poetzl, O.: Ueber die Agraphie. Abhandl. a. d. Neurol. Heft 35, S. Karger; Berlin, 1926.

48. Brown-Sequard C. E.: Dual Character of the Brain. Toner Leeture ¤2, Smithsonian Mise. Colleetions *(291; Washington; 1877.

49. Jaekson, (Ref. 43). p. 164 and 224.

50. Gowers. W. R.: A Manual of Diseases of the Nervous System, Vol. 11. Blakiston; Philadelphia; 1903. p. 123 et. seq.

Zurieh. 8:1-212, 1913. Cited by Head, H. (Ref. 61), page 106.

52. Kennedy, F., and Wolf, A.: The relationship of intelleet to speeeh defeet in aphasie patients with illustrative eases. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 84:125-145, 1936.

53. Gesehwind, N.: Diseonnexion syndromes in animals and man. Brain, 88:237-294, and 88:585-644 1965.

54. Weigl, E.: The Phenomenon of temporary debloeking in aphasia. Z. Phon. Spraehwiss. Komm. 14:337-364, 1961.

55. Bogen, J. E. and Campbell, B.: Recovery of foreleg placing after ipsilateral frontal lobeetomy in the hemieerebreetomized eat. Seienee, 135:309-310, 1962.

56. Denny-Brown. D. and Chambers, R. A.: The parietal lobe and behavior. Res. Pub. Assoe. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 36:35 117, 1958.

58. Jaekson, (Ref. 43) page 153.

59. Liepmann, H.: Das Krankheitsbild der Apraxie (motorisehe Asymbolie). Monatsehrift f. Psyeh.. 8:15-44, 102-132, 182-197, 1900. Cited by Heeaen et al, Ref. 57.

60. Wilson, S. A. K.: A eontribution to the study of apraxia. Brain, 31 :164-216, 1908.

62. Denny-Brown, D.: The nature of apraxia. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 126:9-32, 1958.

63. Brain, W. R.: Speech Disorders. 2nd Ed. Butterworth; Washington, D.C.; 1965.

64. Brun, R.: Clinical and anatomie studies of apraxia. Areh. Neurol. Psychiat., 10:344358, 1923.

65. Critehley, (Ref. 28), page 172.

66. Paterson, A. and Zangwill, O. L.: Disorders of visual space pereeption assoeiated with lesions of the right eerebral hemisphere. Brain, 67:331-358, 1944.

67. Heeaen, H., Penfield, W., Bertrand, C. and Malmo, R.: The syndrome of apraetognosia due to lesions of the minor eerebral hemisphere. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 75:400434, 1956.

68. Zangwill, O. L.: Asymmetry of Cerebral Hemisphere Function. In H. Garland, ed., Scientific Aspects of Neurology E. & S. Livingstone; London; 1961.

69. Piercy, M.: The effeets of eerebral lesions on intelleetual funetion: A review of eurrent researeh trends. Brit. J. Psyehiat., 110:310-352, 1964.

69a. Pierey, M., Heeaen, H., and de Ajuriaguerra, J.: Construetional apraxia assoeiated with unilateral eerebral lesions—left and right sided eases eompared. Brain, 83:225-242, 1960.

70. Ettlinger, G., Warrington, E., and Zangwill, O.: A further study of visual spatial agnosia. Brain, 80:335 361, 1957.

71. MeFie, J., and Zangwill, O. L.: Visual-eonstruetive disabilities assoeiated with lesions of the left eerebral hemisphere. Brain, 83 :243-260, 1960.

73. Warrington, E. K., James, M., and Kinsbourne, M.: Drawing disability in relation to laterality of eerebral lesion. Brain, 89:53 82, 1966.

74. Von Bonin, G.: Anatomical As7ymmetries of the Cerebral Hemispheres. In Mounteastle, V. B., ed. Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press; Baltimore; 1962.

75. Gesehwind, N., and Levitsky, W.: Human Brain: Left-Right Asymmetries in Temporal Speeeh Region. Seienee, 161: 18S187, 1968.

76. Jaekson (Ref. 43) p. 220.

77. Jackson (Ref. 43) p. 148.

78. Munk, H.: On the Funetions of the Cortex. In von Bonin, G., trans. Some Papers on the Cerebral Cortez. C. C. Thomas; Springfield; 1960.

79. Denny-Brown, D.: The Phvsiological Basis of Perception and Speech. In Halpern, L. ed. (see ref. 57).

80. Lissauer, H.: Ein Fall von Seelenblindheit nebst einem Beitrag zur Theorie derselben. Arch. F. Psyehiat. Nervenkrank., 21 :222-270, 1889. Cited by Denny-Brown, Ref. 79.

81. Hensehen, S. E.: On the funetion of the right hemisphere of the brain in relation to the left in speeeh, musie and ealeulation. Brain, 49:110-123, 1926.

82. Head (Ref. 61) p. 116.

83. Brain, W. R.: Diseases of the Nervous System. 6th Ed. p. 81. Oxford Univ. Press; London; 1962.

84. Grinker, R. R., Buey, P. C., and Sahs, A. L.: Neurology. 5th Ed. p. 621. Thomas; Springfield, III.; 1959.

85. Russell, W. R.: Some Anatomical Aspects of Aphasia. Lancet, June 1, 1963. p. 11731177.

87. Luria, A. R.: Kurt Goldstein and neuropsycholog:y. Neuropsychologia, 4:311-313, 1966.

88. Goldstein, K.: Das Symptom, seine Entstehung und Bedeutung fur unsere Auffassung vom Bau und von der Funktion des Nervensystems. Areh. Psyehiat. Nervenkrank., 76:84-108, 1926.

89. Weisenburg, T., and MeBride, K. E.: Aphasia: A Clinical and Ps1Jehological Studv. Commonwealth Fund; New York; 1935.

90. ibid p. 68.

91. ibid p. 463.

92. ibid p. 281.

93. ibid p. 425.

94. ibid p. 329.

95. Wechsler, D.: The Measurement of Adult Intelligence. 2nd. Ed. Williams and Wilkins; Baltimore; 1941.

96. Anderson, A. L.: The effect of laterality loealization of focal brain lesions on the Wesehsler-Bellevue subtests. J. Clin. Psychol., 7: 149-153, 1951.

98. Benton, A. L.: Differential behavioral effeets in frontal lobe disease. Neuropsyehologia, 6 :53-60, 1968.

98a. Carmon, A., and Beehtoldt, H. P.: Dominanee of the right eerebral hemisphere for stereopsis. Neuropsyehologia, 7:29-39, 1969.

99. Cohen, B. D., Noblin, C. D., Silverman, A. J., and Peniek, S. B.: Funetional asymmetry of the human brain. Seienee, 162:475-476, 1968.

100. Costa, L. D., and Vaughn, H. G.: Performanee of patients with lateralized eerebral lesions: I. Verbal and pereeptual tests. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 134:162-168, 1962.

101. Fitzhugh, K. B., Fitzhugh, L. C., and Reitan, R. M.: Weehsler-Bellevue eomparisons in groups with "ehronie" and "current" lateralized and diffuse lesions. J. Consult. Psychol., 26:306 310, 1962.

102. Hall, M. M., Hall, G. C., and Lavoie, P.: Ideation in patients with unilateral or bilateral midline brain lesions. J. Abnormal Psyehol., 73:526-531, 1968.

103. Lansdell, H.: Effeet of extent of temporal lobe ablations on two lateralized defeets. Physiol. Behav., 3:271-273, 1968.

104. Meier, J. J., and Story, J. L.: Seleetive impairment of porteus maze test performanee after right subthalamotomy. Neuropsyehologia, 5: 181-189, 1967.

105. Reitan, R. M.: A Research Program on the Psychological Effects of Brain Lesions in Human Beings. in N. R. Ellis (Ed.), International Review of Research in Mental Retardation. Academie Press; New York; 1966.

107. Dennerl, R. D.: Cognitive defeets and lateral brain dysfunetion in temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia, 5:177-191, 1964.

108. Teuber, H. L., and Weinstein, S.: Performanee on a formboard-task after penetrating brain injury. J. Psyehol., 38:177-190, 1965.

109. Weinstein, S.: Differences in Effects of Brain Wounds Implicating Right or Left Hemispheres. In Mounteastle, V. B., ed. (See ref. 74).

110. Heimburger, R. F., and Reitan, R. M.: Easily administered written test for lateralizing brain lesions. J. Neurosurg., 18:301-312, 1961.

111. Smith, A.: Certain hypothesized hemispheric differenees in language and visual funetions in human adults. Cortex, 2: 109-126, 1966.

112. Benton, A. L.: Clinical Symptomatolouy in RiSht and Left Hemisphere Lesions. In Mounteastle, V. B., ed. (see ref. 74).

(originally published 1891).

114. Bay, E.: Disturbanees of visual pereeption and their examination Brain, 76:515-550, 1953.

115. Brain. (ref. 63) p. 178.

117. Botez, M. I., Serbaneseu, T., and Vernea, I.: Visual statie agnosia with speeial referenee to literal agnosie alexia. Neurology, 14:1101-1111, 1964

118. Kinsbourne, M.: The experimental demonstration of visual reeognition defeet in posterior eerebral lesions. Neurology, 18:289,1968.

119. Benson, D. F. and Greenberg, J. P. Visual form agnosia. Areh. Neurol., 20:82-89, 1969.

120. op. eit. (Ref. 28) p 291.

121. Weinstein, E. A., and Cole, M.: Concepts of AnosoSnosia. In Halpern, L., ed. (see ref. 57).

122. Nielsen, J. M.: Unilateral eerebral dominanee as related to mind blindness: Minimal lesion eapable of eausing agnosia for objeets. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 38:108-35, 1937.

123. Nielsen, J. M.: Dominanee of the right oecipital lobe. Bull. Los Angeles Neurol. Soe., 5: 135-145, 1940.

124. Heeaen, H.: Clinical Symptomatology in RiSht and Left Hemispheric Lesions. In Mounteastle (see ref. 74).

125. Hecaen, H., and Angelergues, R.: La Cecite Psychique; Etude Critique de la Notion d'Agnosie. P. 132. Masson; Paris; 1963.

126. Milner, B.: Psyehological defeets produeed by temporal lobe exeision. Res. Publ. Ass. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 36 :244-257, 1958.

127. Milner, B.: Lateralitv Effects in Audition. In Mounteastle, (see ref. 74).

128. Milner, B.: Visual recognition and reeall after right temporal-lobe exeision in man. Neuropsyehologia, 6: 191-209, 1968.

129. Milner, B.: Visually-guided maze learning in man: Effeets of bilateral hippoeampal, bilateral frontal, and unilateral eerebral lesions. Neuropsychologia, 3 :317-338, 1965.

130. Milner, B., and Kimura, D.: Dissociable l'isual Learninu Defects After Unilateral Temporal Lobectomy in Man. Abstraet, APA Meeting, Phila. April 1964.

131. Corkin, S.: Taetually-guided maze learning in man: Effeets of unilateral eortieal exeisions and bilateral hippocampal lesions. Neuropsychologia, 3:339-351, 1965.

132. Kimura, D.: Right temporal-lobe damage: Pereeption of unfamiliar stimuli after damage. Areh. Neurol., 8:264-271, 1963.

133. Kimura, D.: Dual funetional asymmetry of the brain in visual pereeption. Neuropsyehologia, 4:275-285, 1966.

134. Kimura, D.: Funetional asymmetry of the brain in dichotie listening. Cortex, 3:163178, 1967.

135. Kimura, D., and Folb, S.: Neural proeessing of backwards-speeeh sounds. Seienee, 161 :395-396, 1968.

136. Kimura, D.: Left-right differenees in the pereeption of melodies. Q. J. Exp. Psyehol., 16:355-358, 1964.

137. Shankweiler D.: Effeets of temporal lobe damage on pereeption of diehotieally presented meiodies. J. Comp. Physiol. Psyehol., 62 :115-119, 1966.

•^> Smith, A.: Ambiguities in eoneepts and studies of "brain damage" and "organieity". J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 135:311-326, 1962.

Arrigoni, G., and De Renzi, E.: Construetional apraxia and hemispherie loeus of lesion. Cortex, 1 :17S197, 1964.

De Renzi, E., and Spinnler, H.: Visual reeognition in patients with unilateral eerebral disease. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 142 :515-525, 1966.

De Renzi, E., and Spinnler, H.: Faeial recognition in brain-damaged patients: An experimental approaeh.Neurology, 16:145-152, 1966.

De Renzi, E.: Non-verbal memory and hemispherie side of lesion. Neuropsyehologia, 6: 181-189, 1968.

De Renzi, E., and Faglioni, P.: The relationship between visuo-spatial impairment and eonstruetional apraxis. Cortex, 3:327-342, 1967.

Boller, F., and De Renzi, E.: Relationship between visual memory defeets and hemispherie locus of lesion. Neurology, 17: 1052-1058, 1967.

145. Denny-Brown, D., Meyer, J. S., and Horenstein, S.: The signifieanee of pereeptual rivalry resulting from parietal lesion. Brain, 75:433 471, 1952.

146. Denny-Brown, D., and Banker, B. Q.: Amorphosynthesis from left parietal lesion. Areh. Neur. Psyehiat., 71 :302-313, 1954.

147. Denny-Brown, D.: (untitled diseussion on hemispherie diversity.) P. 244-252, in Mounteastle (see ref. 74).

148. Denny-Brown, D.: The Cerebral Control of Movement. C. C Thomas; Springfield;

149. op. eit. (Ref. 28), p. 354.

150 Battersby, W. S.: The Cerebral Basis of Visual Space Perception. In Halpern (see Ref. 57).

151. op. eit. (Ref. 72), p. 212.

153. Mullan, S., and Penfield, W.: Illusions of eomparative interpretation and emotion. Produetion by epileptie diseharge and by eleetrieal stimulation in the temporal eortex. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 81 :269-284, 1959.

154. Teuber, H. L.: Spaee pereeption and its disturbanees after brain injury in man. Neuropsyehologia, 1 :47-57, 1963.

155. Dide, M.: Diagnostie anatoma-elinique de desorientations temporospatiales. Rev. Neurol., 69 :720 723, 1938.

156. Luria, A. R.: Higher Cortical Functions in Man. P. 90. Basie Books; New York; 1966.

157. Luria, A. R., Tsvetkova, L. S., and Futer, D. S.: Aphasia in a eomposer. J. Neurol. Sei., 2:288-292, 1965.

158. Luria, A. R.: Buman Brain and Psvehological Processes. Harper, Row; New York; 1966.

160. Critehley, (Ref. 28), p. 375.

161. Head, (Ref. 61), p. 520.

162. Ibid., (Ref. 61), p. 409.

163 Botez, M. I., and Wertheim, N.: Expressive aphasia and amusia following right frontal lesion in a right-handed man. Brain, 82: 186-202, 1959.

164. Sehlesinger, B.: Higher Cerebral Functions and Their Clinical Disorders. Grune & Stratton; New York; 1962.

165. Wertheim, N.: Disturbances of the Musical Functions. In Halpern (see Ref. 57).

165a. Chase, R. A.: The Efect of Temporal Lobe Lesions on Some Auditorv Information Processing Tasks in Man. In Darley (see Ref. 10).

166. Alajouanine, T., and Lhermitte, F.: Aphasia and physiology of speech. Res. Pub. Ass. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 42:204-219, 1964.

167. Nielsen, J. M., and Sult, C. W.: Agnosias and the body seheme; five elinical cases. Bull. Los Angeles Neurol. Soc., 4:69-76, 1939.

168. Brain, W. R.: Visual disorientation with special reference to lesions of the right eerebral hemisphere. Brain, 64 :244-272, 1941.

169. Spreen, O., Benton, A. I,., and Fineham, R. W.: Auditory agnosia without aphasia. Arch. Neurol., 13:84-92, 1965.

170. Alajouanine, T.: Aphasia and artistic realization. Brain, 71 :229-241, 1948.

171. Ohashi (in Japanese): Psychiat. Neurol. Jap., 64:890-896, 1962. (Cited by Kreindler et al. ref. 172).

172. Kreindler, A., Fradis, A., and Sevastopol. N.: Le repartition des dominances hemispheriques. Neuropsychologia, 4:143-149, 1966.

173. Nielsen, (Ref. 43a), pp. 234 and 246.

174. Head, (Ref. 61), p. 526.

175. Critehley, M.: Speech and Speech-Loss in Relation to the Duality of the Brain. In Mountcastle (see Ref. 74).

176. Arehibald, Y. M., and Wepman, J. M.: Language disturbanee and non-verbal eognitive performanee in eight patients following injury to the right hemisphere. Brain, 91 :117130, 1968.

177. Mareie, P., Heeaen, H., Dubois, J., et Angelergues, R.: Les realisations du langage ehez les malades atteints de lesions de l'hemisphere droit. Neuropsyehologia, 3:217-245, 1965.

178. Weinstein, E. A.: Affeetions of speeeh with lesions of the non-dominant hemisphere. Res. Publ. Ass. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 42:220-225, 1964.

179. Goldstein, ( Ref . 41), p. 285.

180 Bingley, T.: Mental symptoms in temporal lobe epilepsy and temporal lobe gliomas. Aeta Psychiat. Neurol. Seand. Supp. 120, 1958.

181. Serafetinides, E. A., and Faleoner, M. A.: Speeeh disturbanees in temporal lobe seizures: A study in 100 epileptie patients submitted to anterior temporal lobeetomy. Brain, 86:333-346, 1963.

182. Fisher, E. D., and Mann, L. B.: Shift of writing funetion to minor hemisphere at the age of seventy-two years. Report of ease with advaneed left eerebral atrophy. Bull. Los Angeles Neurol. Soe., 17:194-196, 1952.

183. Critehley, M.: Creative Writing by Aphasiacs. In Neurological Problems, Chorobski, J. (ed.). Pergamon Press; London; 1967.

183a. Dreifuss, F. E.: Observations on aphasia in a polyglot poet. Aeta Psychiat. Neurol. Seand., 36:91-97, 1961.

184. Penfield, W., and Roberts, L.: Speech and Brain-Mechanisms (p. 120, 126). Prineeton Univ. Press, Prineeton, 1959.

185. Croekett, H. G., and Estridge, N. M.: Cerebral hemisphereetomy. Bull. L. A. Neurol. Soe., 16:71-87, 1951.

186. Zollinger, R.: Removal of left eerebral hemisphere. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 34:10551062, 1935.

187. Jackson, (Ref. 43), p. 130.

188. Ibid., (Ref. 43), p. 186.

189. Ibid., (Ref. 43), footnote p. 130.

190. Head, (Ref. 61), p. 42.

191. Ibid., (Ref. 61), p. 209.

192. Goldstein, K.: Thinking and speaking. Ann. N. Y. Aead. Sei., 91 :38-51, 1960.

193. Zangwill, O. L.: Intelligence in Aphasia. In De Reuck & O'Connor, Eds. Disorders of Language. Little, Brown & Co.; Boston; 1964.

194. Alajouanine, T., and Lhermitte, F.: Non-Verbal Communication in Aphasia. In De Reuek and O'Connor (see Ref. 193).

196. Bay, E.: Aphasia and Conceptional Thinking. In Halpern (See Ref. 57).

197. Bay, E.: Aphasia and intelligenee. Int. J. Neurol., 4:252-264, 1964.

198. Rosadini, G., and Rossi, G. F.: On the suggested eerebral dominanee for eonseiousness. Brain, 90:101-112, 1967.

199. Teuber, H. L.: Postseript: Some needed revisions of the elassieal views of agnosia. Neuropsychologia, 3 :371-378, 1965.

200. Semmes, J., Weinstein, S., Ghent, L., and Teuber, H. L.: Somatosensory Changes after Penetrating Brain Wounds in Man. Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge; 1960.

201. Semmes, J.: Hemispherie speeialization: A possible elue to meehanism. Neuropsyehologia, 6:11-26, 1968.

202. Humphrey, M. E., and Zangwill, O. L.: Cessation of dreaming after brain injury. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psyehiat., 14 :322-325, 1951.

203. Holmes, J. E., and Sadoff, R. L.: Aphasia due to a right hemisphere tumor in a righthanded man. Neurology, 16:392-397, 1966.

204. Goodglass, H., and Quadfasel, F. A.: Language laterality in left-handed aphasies. Brain, 77:521-548, 1954.

205. Zangwill, O. L.: Cerebral Dominance and its Relation to Psychological Function. Oliver & Boyd; Edinburgh; 1960.

206. Subirana, A.: The relationship between handedness and language function. Int. J. Neurol., 4 :215-234, 1964.

207. Heeaen, H., and Ajuriaguerra, J.: Left Handedness. Grune & Stratton; New York; 1964.

208. Humphrey, M. E., and Zangwill, O. L.: Effeets of a right-handed oceipito-parietal brain injury in a left-handed man. Brain, 75 :312-324, 1952.

209. Zangwill, O. L.: The eurrent status of eerebral dominanee. Res. Publ. Ass. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 42: 103-113, 1964.

209a. Lenneberg, E. H.: On explaining language. Seienee, 164 :635-643, 1969.

210. Griffith, H., and Davidson, M.: Long-term ehanges in intelleet and behavior after hemisphereetomy. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psyehiat., 29 :571-576, 1966.

210a. MeFie, J.: The effeets of hemisphereetomy on intelleetual funetioning in eases of infantile hemiplegia. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat., 24 :240-249, 1961.

211. Chadwiek, J., and Mann, W. N.: The Medical Works of Hippocrates (p. 183). Blackwell; Oxford; 1950.

212. Wigan, A. L.: The Duality of the Mind. Longman; London; 1844.

212a. Wigan, A. L.: A Few More Words on the Duality of the Mind, and Some of its Corollaries. T. C. Savill; London; 1847 (Index Cat. XVI, 442, 1895).

214. O'Leary, J. L.: (untitled diseussion). In Mounteastle (see Ref. 74).

215. Ferrier, D. The Funetions of the Brain, 2nd ed. p. 426. G. P. Putman's Sons; New York; 1886.

216. Paget, S.: Sir Vietor Horsley. Constable; London; 1919.

217 Jackson, (Ref. 43), p. 129.

219. Goltz, F.: On the Functions of the Hemispheres. In Bonin, G. von, tr. (see Ref. 35).

220. Bogen, J. E., and Campbell, B.: Total hemisphereetomy in the eat. Surg. Forum, 11: 381-383, 1960.

221. Campbell, B.: The faetor of safety in the nervous system. Bull. L. A. Neurol. Soe., 25:109-117,1960.

222. White, R. J., Sehreiner, L. H., Hughes, R. A., MaeCarty, C. S., and Grindlay, J. H.: Physiologie eonsequenees of total hemisphereetomy in the monkey. Neurology, 9: 149-159, 1959.

223. Kruper, D. C., Koskoff, Y. D., and Patton, R. A.: Delayed alternation in hemieerebreetomized monkeys. Seienee, 133:701-702, 1961.

224. Krynauw, R. A.: Infantile hemiplegia treated by removing one eerebral hemisphere. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat., 13 :243-267, 1950.

225. Zuleh, K. J.: Neurologisehe Befunde bei Patienten mit Hemisphareetomie wegen fruhkindlicher Hirnsehaden. Z. fur Neuroehirurgie, 14 :48-63, 1954.

226. Bates, J. A. V.: Stimulation of the medial surfaee of the human eerebral hemisphere after hemisphereetomy. Brain, 76:405 447, 1953.

227. Freneh, L. A., Johnson, D. R., Brown, I. S., and Van Bergen, F. B.: Cerebral hemisDhereetomy for eontrol of intraetable eonvulsive seizures. J. Neurosurg., 12:154-164,

228. Gardner, W. J., Karnosh, L. J., Christopher, C. C., and Gardner, A. K.: Residual funetion following hemisphereetomy for tumour and for infantile hemiplegia. Brain, 78:487-502, 1955.

229. Goodall, R. J.: Cerebral hemisphereetomy. Neurology, 7:151-162, 1957.

229a. Obrador, S.: Nervous Integration after Hemisphereetomy in Man. In Sehaltenbrand, G. and Woolsey, C. N. Cerebral Localization and Organization, Univ. of Wiseonsin Press- Madison- 1964.

230. Ueki, K.: Hemispherectomy in the Human with Special Reference to the Preservation of Punction. In Tokizane, R. and Sehade, J. P., eds., Progress in Brain Research, Vol.21B, Elsevier; Amsterdam; 1966.

Griffith, H. B.: Cerebral hemisphereetomy for infantile hemiplegia in the light of the late results. Ann. Roy. Coll. Surg., 41 :183-201, 1967.

Ignelzi, R. J., and Buey, P. C.: Cerebral hemideeortieation in the treatment of infantile eerebral hemiatrophy. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 147:14 30, 1968.

Glees, P.: Ezperimental Neurology ( p. 486) . Oxford Univ. Press; London; 1961.

White, H. H.: Cerebral hemisphereetomy in the treatment of infantile hemiplegia. Confin. Neurol., 21: 1-50, 1961.

Basser, L. S.: Hemiplegia of early onset and the faeulty of speeeh with speeial referenee to the effeets of hemisphereetomy. Brain, 85 :427-460, 1962.

Dandy, W. E.: Removal of right eerebral hemisphere for eertain tumors with hemiplegia. J A.M.A., 90 :823-825, 1928.

Hillier, W. F.: Total left eerebral hemisphereetomy for malignant glioma. Neurology, 4:718-721, 1954.

Austin, G. M., and Grant, F. C.: Physiologie observations following total hemisphereetomy in man. Surgery, 38:250-258, 1955.

Rowe, S. N.: Mental ehanges following removal of right eerebral hemisphere for brain tumors. Amer. J. Psyehiat., 94:604-614, 1957.

240. Bell, E., and Karnosh L. J.: Cerebral hemisphereetomy: Report oI a ease ten ~-ears after operation. J. Neurosurg., 6 :285-293, 1949.

241. Mensh, I. N., Sehwartz, H. G., Matarazzo, J. G., and Matarazzo, J. D.: Psyehologieal funetioning following eerebral hemisphereetomy in man. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 67:787-796, 1952.

242. Bruell, J. H., and Albee, G. W.: Higher intelleetual funetions in a patient with hemisphereetomy for tumors. J. Consult. Psyehol.,26 :90-98, 1962.

243. Myers, R. Eh, and Sperrv, R. W.: Interoeular transfer of a visual form diserimination habit in eats after seetion of the optie ehiasma and corpus callosum. Anat. Reeord, 115 :351-352, 1953.

244. Myers, R. E.: Funetion of corpus callosum in interocular transfer. Brain, 79:358-363, 1956.

245. Myers, R. E., and Sperry, R. W.: Interhemispherie eommunieation through the corpus callosum. Mnemonie earry-over between the hemispheres. Areh. Neurol. Psychiat., 80 :298-303,1958.

246. Sperry, R. W.: Cerebral organization and behavior. Seienee, 133: 1749-1757, 1961.

247. Sperry, R. W.: Some developments in brain lesion studies of learning. Fed. Proe., 20:609-616. 1961.

249. Trevarthen, C. B.: Double visual learning in split-brain monkeys. Scienee, 136:25S 259, 1962.

250. Gazzaniga, M. S., and Young, E. D.: Effeets of eommissurotomy on the processing of inereasing visual information. Exp. Brain Researeh, 3:368-371, 1967.

251. Ramon y Cajal, S.: Anatomieql and Physiolol7ical Considerations abovt the Brain. In Von Bonin (see Ref. 35).

252. Sherrington, C.: The Intes7rative Aetion of the Nervous System (p. xvii). Cambridge Univ. Press; Cambridge; 1947.

253. Magoun, H. W.: The Waking Brain. C. C Thomas; Springfield, III.; 1958.

254. Rather, I,. J.: Mind and Body in Eixhteenth Century Medicine; a Study Based on Jerome Gaub's De regimine mentis. Univ. of California Press; Berkeley; 1965.

255. Bartemeier, L. H.: Psyehoanalysis and religion. Bull. Menninger Clinie, 29:237-244, 1965.

256. Lashley, K. S.: Cerebral organization and behavior. Res. Pub. Ass. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 36: 1-18, 1958.

257. Hebb, D. O.: The Problem of Consciousness and Introspection. In Delafresnaye, J. F., ed., Brain Mechanisms and Consciousness. C. C Thomas; Springfield; 1954.

258. MeCleave, P. M.: (untitled letter) . J.A.M .A., 207: 159, 1959.

259. Smith, C. S.: Matter versus materials: A historical view. Seienee, 162:637-644, 1968.

260 Priee, D. K.: Purists and politicians. Seienee, 163:25-31, 1969.

261. Rueseh, J., and Kees, W.: Nonverbal Communication. Univ. of Calif. Press; Berkeley; 1956.

262. Bateson, G., and Jaekson, D. D.: Some varieties of pathogenie organiration. Res. Pub. Ass. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 42 :270-283, 1964.

263. Young, J. Z.: Why Do We Have Two Brainst7 In Mounteastle (see Ref. 74).

264. Pribram, K. H. (Untitled diseussion), in Mounteastle (Ref. 74).

265. James, W.: The Principles of Psychology, Vol. I, p. 49. Henry Holt; New York; 1890.

266. Murphy, G.: Historical Introduction to Modern Psychology (p. 27). Hareourt, Braee; New York- 1951.

267. Frolov, Y. P.: Pavlov and His Sehool (p. 233). Oxford Univ. Press; New York; 1937.

268. Luria, (Ref. 158), p. 74.

269. Freud, S.: Collected Papers, Vol. IV, p. ll9ff. Hogarth Press; London; 1946.

270 Fenichel, O.: The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. W. W. Norton; N.Y.; 1945.

271. Fromm, E.: The Present Crisis in Psychoanalysis. In Simmel, M. L., ed. The Reach of Mind. Springer; New York; 1968.

272. MeFie, J., and Pierey, M. F.: Intelleetual impairment with loealized eerebral lesions. Brain, 75:292-311, 1952.

273. Benediet, L. W.: MPeople Who Have Two Souls. In Mead, M. and Calas, N., eds., Primitive Heritage. Random House; N.Y.; 1953.

274. Herz, R.: Death & the Right Hand. The Free Press; Gleneoe, III.; 1960.

275. Domhoff, G. W.: But why did they sit on the king's right in the first plaee? Psyehoanalytie. Rev., (in press).

277. Levi-Strauss, C.: Man has never been so savage as he is today. Realites, 175:48-51, 1965.

278. Akhilananda: Hindu Psychology: Its Meaning for the West. Harper; New York; 1946.

279. Bruner, J. S.: On Knowing; Essays for the Left Hand (p. 74). Atheneum; New York; 1965.

280. Hayes, K. J.: Genes, drives and intellect. Psychol. Rep., 10 :299-342, 1962.

281. MeCulloeh, W. S., and Garol, H. W.: Cortical origin and distribution of corpus callosum and anterior eommissure in the monkey (Maeaea mulatta). J. Neurophysiol., 4:555-563, 1941.

282. Sweet, W. H.: Seeping intraeranial aneurysm simulating neoplasm. Syndrome of the corpus callosum. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 45:86-104, 1941.

282a. Bykov, K. M., and Speransky, A. D.: Observation upon dogs after seetion of the corpus callosum. Coll. Papers Physiol. Labs. 1. P. Pavlov, 1924, 1:47-59. Cited by Eidelberg (ref. 379a).

283. Van Wagenen, W. P., and Herren, R. Y.: Surgical division of eommissural pathways in the corpus callosum. Relation to spread of an epileptie attaek. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 44:740-759, 1940.

284. Akelaitis, A. J.: Psyehobiologieal studies following seetion of the corpus callosum. A preliminary report. Amer. J. Psyehiat., 97:1147-57, 1941.

285. Smith, K. U., and Akelaitis, A. J.: Studies on the corpus callosum. I. Laterality in behavior and bilateral motor organization in man before and after seetion of the corpus callosum. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 47:519-543, 1942.

286. Akelaitis, A. J.: Studies on the corpus callosum. II. The higher visual funetions in eaeh homonymous field following eomplete seetion of the corpus callosum. Areh. Neurol. Psychiat., 45:788-796, 1941.

287. Akelaitis, A. J., Risteen, W. A., Herren, R. Y., and Van Wagenen, W. P.: Studies on the corpus callosum. III. A eontribution to the study of dyspraxia in epilepties following partial and eomplete seetion of the corpus callosum. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 47:971-1008, 1942.

288. Akelaitis, A. J.: Studies on the corpus callosum. IV. Diagnostie dyspraxia in epilepties following partial and eomplete seetion of the corpus callosum. Amer. J. Psyehiat., 101 :594-599, 1944-45.

289. Akelaitis, A. J.: Studies on the corpus callosum. V. Homonymous defeets for eolor, objeet and letter reeognition (homonymous hemiamblyopia) before and after seetion of the corpus callosum. Areh. Neurol. Psychiat., 48:108-118, 1942.

290. Akelaitis, A. J.: Studies on the corpus callosum. VI. Orientation (temporal-spatial gnosis) following seetion of the corpus callosum. Areh. Neurol. Psychiat., 48:914937, 1942.

291. Akelaitis, A. J.: Studies on the corpus callosum. VII. Study of language ftmetions (taetile and visual lexia and graphia) unilaterally following seetion of the corpus callosum. J. Neuropath. Exper. Neurol., 2 :226-262, 1943.

295. 296. 297. 298.

292. Akelaitis, A. J.: Studies on the corpus callosum. VIII. The effeets of partial and eomplete seetion of the corpus callosum on psyehopathie epilepties. Amer. J. Psyehiat., 98:409-414, 1941.

293. Akelaitis, A. J., Risteen, W. A., and Van Wagenen, W. P.: Studies on the corpus callosum. IX. Relationship of the grasp reflex to seetion of the corpus callosum. Areh. Neurol. Psyehiat., 49 :820-825, 1943.

Akelaitis, A. J.: A study of gnosis, praxis and language following seetion of the corpus callosum and anterior eommissure. J. Neurosurg., 1 :94-102, 1944.

Parsons, F. H.: Eight eases of seetion of corpus callosum in individuals with a history of epileptie seizures: Psyehologieal tests. J. Gen. Psyehol., 29 :227-241, 1943.

Parsons, F. H.: Psychologieal tests of patients one year after seetion of corpus callosum. Psychol. Bull., 37:498, 1940.

Bridgman, C. S., and Smith, K. tJ.: Bilateral neural integration in visual pereeption after seetion of the corpus callosum. J. Comp. Neurol., 83:57 68, 1945.

299. Hursh, J. B.: Origin of the spike and wave pattern of petit mal epilepsy. An eleetroeneephalographie study. Areh. Neurol. Psychiat., 53 :274-282, 1945.

300. Smith, K. U.: Learning and the assoeiative pathways of the human eerebral eortex. Seienee, 114:117-120, 1951.

301. Smith, K. U.: Experimental analysis of the assoeiative meehanism of the human brain in learning funetions. J. Comp. Physiol . Psychol., 45 :66-72, 1952.

302. Goldstein, M. N., and Joynt, R. J.: Long-term follow-up of a eallosal-seetioned patient. Areh. Neurol., 20:96-102, 1969.

303. MeCulloeh, W. S.: Cortico-Cortical Connections. In The Preeentral Cortes, P. Buey, ed., Univ. of Illinois Press; Urbana; 1944. (See p. 241)

304. Tomaseh, J.: Size, distribution, and number of fibres in the human corpus callosum. Anat. Reeord, 119:7-19,1954.

305. Bremer, F., Brihaye, J., and Andre-Balisaux, G.: Physiologie et pathologie du eorps ealleux. Arehives Suisses Neurol. Psyehiat., 78:31-87, 1956.

306. See Ref. 243 to 248.

307. op. eit. (Ref. 233), p. 498.

308. Stamm, J. S., and Sperry, R. W.: Funetion of corpus callosum in eontralateral transfer of somesthetie diserimination in eats. J. Comp. Physiol . Psyehol., 50: 138-143, 1957.

309. Downer, J. L. de C.: Interhemispheric Integration in the Visual System, in Mounteastle, V. B. (ed.), Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance, Johns Hopkins Press; Baltimore, 1962.

310. Meikle, T. H., Sechzer, J. A., and Stellar, E.: Interhemispherie transfer of taetile eonditioned responses in corpus callosum-seetioned eats. J. Neurophysiol., 25:530-543, 1962.

311. Bossom, J., and Hamilton, C. R.: Interoeular transfer of prism-altered eoordination in split-brain monkeys. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 56: 769-774, 1963.

312. Ettlinger, G., and Morton, H. B.: Callosal seetion: its effeet on performanee of a bimanual skill. Seienee, 139:485-486, 1963.

313. Gliekstein, M., Arora, H. A., and Sperry, R. W.: Delayed response performanee following optie traet seetion, unilateral frontal lesion and eomissurotomy. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 56:11-18, 1963.

314. Voneida, T. J.: Performanee of a visual eonditioned response in split-brain eats. Exp. Neurol., 8:493-504, 1963.

315. Blaek, P., and Myers, R. E.: Visual funetion of the forebrain eommissures in the ehimpanzee. Seienee, 146:799 800, 1964.

316. Butler, C. R.: A memory-reeord for visual diserimination habits produeed in both

eerebral hemispheres of monkey when only one hemisphere has reeeived direet visual information. Brain Researeh, 10:152-167, 1968.

317. Lehman, R. A. W.: Motor eo-ordination and hand preferenee after lesions of the visual pathway and corpus callosum. Brain, 91 :525-538, 1968.

318. Mark, R. F., and Sperry R. W.: Bimanual eoordination in monkeys. Exp. Neurol., 21:92-104, 1968.

319. Noble, J.: Parodoxieal interoeular transfer of mirror-image diseriminations in the optie ehiasm-seetioned monkey. Brain Researeh, 10:127-151, 1968.

320. Kohn, B., and Myers, R. E.: Visual information and intermanual transfer of lateh box problem solving in monkeys with eommissures seetioned. Exp. Neurol., 23: 303-309, 1969.

321. Gordon, H. W., Bogen, J. E., and Sperry, R. W.: Variations in the syndrome of ineomplete hemispherie deeonneetion with extraeallosal damage. (in preparation).

322. Sweet W. H. (Ref. 282).

323. Critehley M.: The anterior eerebral artery and its syndromes. Brain, 53:120-165, 1930.

324. Gesehwind, N., and Kaplan, E.: A human eerebral deeonneetion syndrome. A preliminary report. Neurology, 12 :675-685, 1962.

325. Saul, R. E., and Sperry, R. W.: Absenee of eommissurotomy symptoms with agenesis of the corpus callosum. Neurology, 18:307, 1968.

326. Simpson, G. G.: This View of Life, p. 164. Hareourt, Braee & World; New York; 1964.

327. Hebb, D. O. (Ref. 257), p. 409.

328. Campbell, B. (personal eommunieation, see also Ref. 221).

329. Von Bonin, G.: The Evolution of the Human Brain. Univ. of Chieago Press; Chieago; 1963.

330. Lisonek, P., Golda, V., and Petrek, J.: Asymmetry of the frontal lobes of eat's brain. Aetivitas Nerv. Sup., 9:276 278, 1967.

331. Trevarthen, C. B.: Manipulative Strateyies of Baboons and the Oriains of Cerebral Asymmetrv. In Kinsbourne, M. (ed.), Hemispherie Asymmetry of Funetion. Tavistoek; London; in press

332. Gazzaniga, M. S.: Effeets of eommissurotomy on a preoperatively learned visual diserimination. Exper. Neurol., 8:14-19, 1963.

333. Ettlinger, G., and Dawson, R. F.: Hand preferenee in the monkey: The effeet of unilateral eortieal removals. Neuropsyehologia, 7:161-166,1969.

334. Buresova, O., Bures, J., and Beran, V.: A eontribution to the problem of the "dominant" hemisphere. Physiol. Bohemoslav., 4:29 37, 1958.

335. Cole, J.: Laterality in the use of the hand, foot and eye in monkeys. J. Comp. Physiol. Psyeh., 50:29S299, 1957.

336. Cole, J.: Paw preferenee in eats related to hand preferenee in animals and man. J. Comp Physiol. Psyeh., 48:137-140, 1955.

337. Peterson, G. M.. and Devine, J. V.: Transfer in handedness in the rat resulting from small eortieal lesions after limited foreed praetiee. J. Comp. Physiol. Psyehol., 56: 752-756, 1963.

338. Golda, V., Ullsperger, P., Beyer, L., Petrek, J., and Lisonek, P.: Laterality in the use of the forepaws in the eat. Aeta Univ. Palaekianae Olomueensis, 41 :193-199, 1966.

339. Warren, J. M., Abplanalp, J. M., and Warren, H. B.: The Development of Handedness in Cats and Rhesus Monkeys. In H. W. Stevenson (ed.), Earlv Behavior: Comparative and Developmental Approaches. John Wiley Sons; New York; 1967.339a. Lenneberg, E. H.: Bioloyical Foundations of Language (p. 305). Wiley; New York; 1967.340. Hayes, K. J., and Hayes, C.: The Cultural Capacitv of Chimpanzees. In Gavan, J. A. ed., The Non-Human Primates and Human Evolution. Wayne Univ. Press; Detroit; 1955.341. Kellogg, W. N.: Communieation and language in the home-raised ehimpanzee. Seienee, 162:423-427, 1968.342 Gardner, R. A., and Gardner, B. T.: Teaehing sign language to a ehimpanzee. Seienee, 65:664 672, 1969.343. Fink, B. R.: Larynx and speeeh as determinants in the evolution of man. Perspeetives Biol. Med., 7:85-93,1963.344. De Brul, E. L., and Reed, C. A.: Skeletal evidenee of speeeh? Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 18: 153-156, 1960.345. Lieberman, P. H., Klatt, D. H., and Wilson, W. H.: Vocal Traet Limitations on the Vowel Repertoires of Rhesus Monkey and Other Nonhuman Primates; Seienee, 164:1185 87, 1969.346. Ettlinger, G., and Blakemore, C. B.: Cross-modal transfer set in the monkey. Neuropsyehologia, 7:41-47, 1969.347. Gesehwind, N.: Neurological Foundations of Languaye. In Progress in Learnin!l Disabilities. Grune and Stratton; New York; 1967.347a. Davenport, R. K., and Rogers, C. M.: Cross Modal Transfer of Information; Yerkes Newsletter,6:30, 1969.347b. Chorover, S. L., and Cole, M.: An investiaation of the equivalence between auditory and visual rhythms in man. J. Physiol., 156:35P, 1961.348. Mayer, M.: Recordings. Esquire, June, 1968, p. 12.349. Myers, R. E.: Transmission of Visual Information usithin and between the Hemispheres: A Behavioral Study. In Mounteastle, V. B. (see Ref. 74).350. Semmes, J., and Mishkin, M.: A Seareh for the Cortical Substrate of Tactual Memories. In Functions of the Corpus Callosum, G. Ettlinger, ed., Ciba; London; 1965.351. Gazzaniga, M. S.: Interhemispherie eommunieation of visual learning. Neuropsyehologia, 4:183-189, 1966.352. See Ref. 316.353. Butler, S. R.: Mechanisms of Sensory Integration. PhD. Thesis; Univ. of London; 1967.354. Leao, A. A. P.: Spreading depression of aetivity in cerebral cortex. J. Neurophysiol., 7:359 390, 1944.

355. Marshall, W. H.: Spreading depression of Leao. Physiol. Rev., 39 :23s279, 1959.

356. Oehs, S.: The nature of spreading depression in neural networks. Int. Rev. Neurobiol., 4 :2-70, 1962.

357. Van Harreveld, A., and Bogen, J. E.: Regional differences in propagation of spreading eortieal depression in the rabbit. Soe. Exper. Biol. Med., 91 :297-302, 1956.

358. Bures, J., and Buresova, O.: The use of Leao's spreading depression in the study of interhemispherie transfer of memory traces. J. Comp. Physiol. Psyeh., 53:558-563, 1960.

359. Russell, I. S., and Oehs, S.: Loealization of a memory traee in one eortical hemisphere and transfer to the other hemisphere. Brain, 86:37-54,1963.

360. Kohn, B.: Spreading depression and stimulus eontrol of interhemispherie transfer. Neuropsychologia, 5:275-286, 1967.

361. Sehneider, A. M., and Hamburg, M.: Interhemispherie transfer with spreading depression. J. Comp. Physiol. Psyehol., 62:133-136, 1966.

362. Bures, J., and Buresova, O.: Reeent applications of eortieal spreading depression in behavioral researeh. Czeeh. Aead. Sei., Prague; 1967.

363. Bremer, F.: Physiology of the corpus eallosum. Res. Pub. Ass. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 36:424-428, 1956.

364. Rueseh, J., and Kees, W.: Nonverbal Communication. Univ. of Calif. Press; Berkeley; 1956.

365. Spender, S.: Chaos and Control in Poetry. U.S. Govt. Printing Offiee; Washington; 1966.

366. Spender, S.: The MakinS of a Poem. In Ghiselin, B., ed., The Creative Process: A Symposium. The New American Library; New York; 1952.

367. Poineare, H.: Science and Method, p. 55ff. Dover; New York; 1952.

368. Hadamard, J.: An Essay on the Psvchologv of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Dover, New York; 1954.

Long, F. A.: Peter Debye—An appreeiation. Seience, 155:979-980, 1967.

Jung, C. G.: PsWchology and Lzterature. In Ghiselin, Ref. 366.

Bruner, J. (Ref. 279, p 74ff).

Alajouanine, T. (Ref. 170).

Fifkova, E.: The influenee of unilateral visual deprivation on optie eenters. Brain Researeh, 6:763-766, 1967.

Sperry, R. W.: Embrgogenesis of Behavioral Nerve Nets. In Dehaan, R. L. and Ursprung, H., eds., Organoyenesis, Holt, Rinehart and Winston; N.Y.; 1965.

Rombauer, I. S., and Beeker, M. R.: 'l'he J¡U of Cooking. Bobbs—Merrill; New York; 1953.

. Moore, Notes on ScuSpture. In Ghiselin. Ref. 366.

Asanuma, H., and Okuda, O.: Effeets of transeallosal volleys on pyramidal traet eell aetivity of eat. J. Neurophysiol ., 25: 198-208, 1962.

~.v. Berlueehi, G.: (personal eommlmieation).

379a. Eidelberg, E.: Callosal and non-callosal connerions between the sensory-motor cortices in cat and monAceg~. EEG Clin. Neurophysiol. 26 :557-64, 1969.

380. Valery, P.: The Course in Poetics: First Lesson. In Ghiselin, Ref. 366.

382. Fifield, W.: Miro: an interview in Mallorea. Arts Magazine, 43:17-19, 1968.

Abplanalp, J. M. (339)

Ajuriaguerra, J. (57, 69a, 207)

Akelaitis, A. J. (28b295)

Akhilananda, (278)

Alajouanine, Th. (72, 151, 166, 170, 194, 372)

Albee, G. W. (242)

Anderson, A. L. (96)

Andre-Balisaux, G. (305)

Angelergues, R. (40, 57, 125, 177)

Arehibald, Y. M. (176)

Arora, H. A. (313)

Arrigoni, G. (139)

Asanuma, H. (378)

Austin, G. M. (238)

Balthazar, E. E. (97)

Banker, B. Q. (146)

Bartemeier, L. H. (255)

Basser, L. S. (235)

Bates, J. A. V. (226)

Bateson, G. (262)

Battersby, W. S. (150)

Bay, E. (114, 196, 197)

Beehtoldt, H. P. (98a)

Beeker, M. R. (376)

Bell, E. (240)

Benediet, L. W. (273)

Benson, D. F. (119)

Benton, A. L. (38, 98, 112, 159)

Benton, W. K. (169)

Beran, V. (334)

Berlueehi, G. (379)

Bertrand, C. (67)

Beyer, L. (338)

Bingley, T. (180)

Bla( k, P. (315)

Blakemore, C. B. (346)

Bogen, J. E. (1-9, 12, 17, 55, 220, 321, 357)

Boller, F. (144)

Bossom, J. (311)

Botez, M. I. (117, 163)

Brain, W. R. (63, 83, 115, 168)

Bremer, F. (305, 363)

Bridgman, C. S. (298)

Brihaye, J. (305)

Broca, P. (35)

Brown, I. S. (227)

Brown-Sequard, C. E. (48)

Bruell, J. H. (242)

Brun, R. (64)

Bruner, J. S. (279, 371)

Buey, P. C. (84, 232)

BureVs J. (334, 358, 362)

Buresova, O. (334, 358, 362)

Burklund, C. W. (31)

Butler, C. R. (316, 352)

Butler, S. R. (16, 353)

Bykov, K. M. (282a)

Campbell, B. (55, 220, 221, 328)

Carmon, A. (98a)

Chadwiek, J. (211)

Chambers, R. A. (56)

Chase, R. A. (165a)

Chorover, S. L. (347b)

Christopher, C. C. (228)

Cohen, B. D. (99)

Cole, J. (335, 336)

Cole, M. (121, 347b)

Corkin, S. (131)

Costa, L. D. (100)

Critehley, M. (28, 29, 30, 37, 65, 120, 149, 160,

175, 183, 195, 323)

Croekett, H. G. (185)

Dandy, W. E. (236)

Davidson, M. (210)

Dawson, R. F. (333)

DeBrul, E. L. (344)

Devine, J. V. (337)

Dide, M. (155)

Dennerl, R. D. (107)

Denny-Brown, D. (56, 62, 79, 145-148)

De Renzi, E. (139-144)

Domhoff, G. W. (275)

Douzenis, J. A. (40)

Downer, J. L. de C. (309)

Dubois, J . (177)

Dreifuss, F. E. (183a)

Eidelberg, E. (379a)

Elwyn, A. (86)

Estridge, N. M. (185)

Ettlinger, G. (70, 116, 312, 333, 346)

Faglioni, P. (140, 143a)

Faleoner, M . A. (181)

Feniehel, O. (270)

Ferrier, D. (215)

Fieham, R. W. (169)

Fifield, W. (382)

Fifkova, E. (374)

Fink, B. R. (343)

Fisher, E. D. (3, 182)

Fitzhugh, K. B. (101)

Fitzhugh, L. C . (101)

Fradis, A. (172)

Freneh, L. A. (227)

Freud, S. (113, 269)

Frolov, Y. P. (267)

Fromm, E. (271)

Gardner, A. K. (228)

Gardner, B. T. (342)

Gardner, R. A. (342)

Gardner, W. J. (228)

Garol, H. W. (281)

Gazzaniga, M. S. (5-15, 250, 332 361)

Gesehwind, N. (53, 75, 324, 347)

Ghent, L. (200)

Ghiselin, B. (370)

Glees, P. (233, 307)

Gliekstein, M. (313)

Golda, V. (330, 338)

Goldstein, K. (41, 47, 88, 179, 192)

Goldstein, M. N. (302)

Goltz, F. (219)

Goodall, R. J. (229)

Goodglass, H. (204)

Gordon, H. W. (26, 321)

Gowers, W. R. (50)

Grant, F. C. (238)

Greenberg, J. P. (119)

Griaule, M. (276)

Griffith, H. (210, 231)

Grindlay, J. H. (222)

Grinker, R. R. (84)

Hadamard, J. (368)

Hall, G. C. (102)

Hall, M. M. (102)

Hamburg, M. (361)

Hamilton, C. R. (311)

Hayes, C. (340)

Hayes, K. J. (280, 340)

Head, H. (61, 116, 161, 162, 174, 190, 191)

Hebb, D. O. (257, 327)

Heeaen, H. (40, 57, 67, 69a, 124, 125, 177, 207)

Heimburger, R. F. (110)

Hensehen, S. E. (81)

Herren, R. Y. (283, 287)

Herrmann, G. (45)

Herz, R. (274)

Hillier, W. F. (237)

Holmes, J. E. (203)

Horenstein, S. (145)

Hubel, D. H. (373)

Hughes, R. A. (222)

Humphrey, M. E. (202, 208)

Hursh, J. B. (299)

Ignelzi, R. J. (232)

Jaekson, D. D. (262)

Jaekson, J. H. (43, 49, 58, 76, 77, 187-189

217)

James, M. (73)

James, W. (265)

Johnson, D. R. (227)

Joynt, R. J. (38, 159, 302)

Jung, C. G. (370)

Kaplan, E. (324)

Karnosh, L. J. (228, 240)

Kees, W. (261, 364)

Kellogg, W. N. (341)

Kennedy, F. (52)

Kimura, D. (130-136)

Kinsbourne, M. (73, 118)

Kohn, B. (320, 360)

Koskoff, Y. D. (223)

Kreindler, A. (172)

Kruper, D. C. (223)

Krynauw, R. A. (224)

Lansdell, H. (103)

Lashley, K. S. (256)

Lavoie, P. (102)

Leao, A. A. P. (354)

Lehman, R. A. W. (317)

Lenneberg, E. H. (209a, 339a)

Levi-Strauss, C. (277)

Levita, E. (106)

Levitsky, W. (75)

Levy-Agresti, J. (18, 27)

Levy, I. (213)

Lhermitte, F. (72, 166, 194)

Lieberman, P. (345)

Liepmann, H. (59)

Lisonek, P. (330, 338)

Lissauer, H. (80)

Long, F. A. (369)

Luria, A. R. (87, 156, 157, 15S, 268)

MaeCarty, C. S. (222)

MeBride, K. E. (89-94)

MeCleave, P. M. (258)

MeCulloeh, W. S. (281, 303)

MeFie, J. (71, 210a, 272)

Magoun, H. W.f(253)

Malmo, R. (67)

Mann, W. N. (211)

Mann, L. B. (182)

Mareie, P. (177)

Mark, R. F. (318)

Marshall, W. H. (355)

Matarazzo, J. D. (241)

Matarazzo, J. G. (241)

Mayer, M. (348)

Meier, M. J. (104)

Meikle, T. H. (310)

Mensh, I. N. (241)

Meyer, J. S. (145)

Milner, B. (24, 126-130)

Mishkin, M. (350)

Moore, H. (377)

Morrison, D. H. (97)

Morton, H. B. (312)

Mounteastle, V. B. (74)

Mullan, S. (153)

Munk, EI. (78)

Murphy, G. (266)

Myers, R. E. (244, 245, 248, 306, 315, 320,

349)

Nebes, R. (25)

Nielsen, J. M. (43a, 46, 122, 123, 167, 173)

Noble, J. (319)

Noblin, C. D. (99)

Norrsell, U. (16)

Obrador, S. (229a)

Oehs, S. (356, 359)

Ogle, W. (39)

Ohashi, (171)

Okuda, O. (378)

O'Leary, J. L. (213, 214)

Paget, S. (216)

Parsons, F. H. (296, 297)

Paterson, A. (66)

Patton, R. A. (223)

Penfield, W. (67, 152, 153, 184)

Peniek, S. B. (99)

Peterson, G. M. (337)

Petrek, J. (330, 338)

Pierey, M. (69, 69a, 272)

Pitres, A. (44)

Poetzl, O. (45)

PoineareF, H. (367)

Pribram, K. H. (264)

Priee, D. K. (260)

Quadfasel, F. A. (204)

Ramon y Cajal, S. (251)

Rather, L. J. (254)

Reed, C. A. (344)

Reitan, R. M. (101, 105, 110)

Riklan, M. (106)

Risteen, W. A. (287, 293)

Roberts, L. (184)

Rombauer, I. S. (376)

Rosadini, G. (198)

Rossi, G. F. (198)

Rowe, S. N. (239)

Rueseh, J. (261, 364)

Russell, I. S. (359)

Russell, W. R. (85)

Sadoff, R. L. (203)

Sahs, A. L. (84)

Saul, R. E. (325)

Sehlesinger, B. (164)

Sehneider, A. M. (361)

Sehreiner, L. H. (222)

Sehwartz, H. G. (241)

Seehzer, J. A. (310)

Semmes, J. (200, 201, 350)

Serafetinides, E. A. (181)

Serbaneseu, T. (117)

Sevastopol, N. (172)

Shankweiler, D. (137)

Sherrington, C. (252)

Silverman, A. J. (99)

Simpson, G. G. (326)

Smith, A. (31, 32 33, 111, 138)

Smith, C. S. (259)

Smith, K. U. (285, 298, 300, 301)

Smith, S. (213)

Spender, S. (365, 366, 381)

Speransky, A. D. (282a)

Sperry, R. W. (4-13, 19-27, 245-247, 306, 308,

313, 318, 321 325, 375)

Spinnler, H. (i41, 142)

Spreen, O. (169)

Stamm, J. S. (308)

Stauffenberg, W. von (51)

Stellar, E. (310)

Story, J. L. (104)

Strong, O. S. (86)

Subirana, A. (206)

Sult, C. W. (167)

Sweet, W. H. (282, 322)

Taylor, L. (24)

Teuber, H.-L. (108, 154, 199, 200)

Todd, R. E. (97)

Tomaseh, J. (304)

Trevarthen, C. B. (249, 331)

Trousseau, (36)

Ueki, K. (230)

Ullsperger, P. (338)

Valery, P. (380)

Van Bergen, F. B. (227)

Van Harreveld, A. (357)

Van Wagenen, W. P. (283, 287, 293)

Vaughn, H. G. (100)

Vernea, I. (117)

Vogel, P. J. (1-4)

Von Bonin, G. (35, 74, 78, 329)

Voneida, T. J. (314)

Warren, J. M. (339)

Warren, H. B. (339)

Warrington, E. (70, 73)

Weehsler, D. (95)

Weigl, E. (54)

Weinstein, E. A. (121, 178)

Weinstein, S. (108, 109, 200)

Weisenburg, T. (89-94)

Weiss, S. (213)

Wertheim, N. (163, 165)

Wepman, J. M. (176)

White, H. H. (234)

White, R. J. (222)

Wiesel, T. N. (373)

Wigan, A. L. (212, 212a)

Wilson, S. A. K. (60)

Wolf, A. (52)

Young, J. Z. (263)

Young, E. D. (250)

Zangwill, O. L. (34, 66, 68, 71, 193, 202, 205

208, 209)

Zollinger, R. (186)

Zuleh, K. J. (225)