Recovery and neural reorganization after congenital left- and right-brain injury is assessed on dichotic listening and tachistoscopic visuo-perceptual tasks. A matched-pair approach for age and type of lesion is used. Over-all, deficits are less pronounced than in adults. Innate specialization of both left and right hemispheres is supported by the data. In addition, a left-right maturational gradient is suggested by the all-around better performance of the child with left-hemisphere pathology. The later maturing, relatively less-committed right hemisphere is better able to compensate after unilateral injury.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeaumontJ. G.Developmental aspects. In BeaumontJ. G. (Ed.), Divided visual field studies of cerebral organization. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Pp. 113–128.
2.
BentonA. L.HamsherK.VarneyN.SpreenO.Contributions in neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford Univer. Press, 1983.
3.
BentonA. L.HannayJ.VarneyN.Visual perception of line direction in patients with unilateral brain damage. Neurology, 1975, 25, 907–910.
4.
BentonA. L.Van AllenM. W.Impairment in facial recognition in patients with cerebral disease. Cortex, 1968, 4, 344–358.
5.
BertelsonP.VanhaelenH.MoraisJ.Left hemifield superiority and the extraction of physiognomic information. In RussellI. S.Van HofM.BerlucchiG. (Eds.), Structure and function of cerebral commissures. London: Macmillan, 1979. Pp. 400–410.
6.
BestC.HoffmanH.GlanvilleB.Development of infant ear asymmetries for speech and music. Perception and Psychophysics, 1982, 31, 75–85.
7.
ChomskyN.Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968.
8.
CorbellisM.MorganM.On the biological basis of human laterality: Evidence for a maturational left-right gradient. Behavioral and Brain Science, 1978, 2, 261–336.
9.
DencklaM. B.RudelR. G.BromanM.The development of a spatial orientation skill in normal, learning-disabled, and neurologically impaired children. In CaplanD. (Ed.), Biological studies of mental processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980. Pp. 44–59.
10.
DennisM.WhitakerH.Language acquisition following hemidecortication. Brain and Language, 1976, 3, 404–433.
11.
DeRenziE.SpinnlerH.Facial recognition in brain-damaged patients. Neurology, 1966, 16, 145–152.
12.
FingerS.SteinD. G.Brain damage and recovery: Research and clinical perspectives. New York: Academic Press, 1982.
13.
GazzanigaM. S.SmylieC. S.Facial recognition and brain asymmetries: Clues to underlying mechanisms. Annals of Neurology, 1983, 13, 536–540.
14.
GoodglassH.Binaural digit presentation and early lateral brain damage. Cortex, 1967, 3. 295–306.
15.
HerronJ.Neuropsychology of left-handedness. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
16.
KalilK.RehT.A light and electron microscopic study of regrowing pyramidal tract fibers. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 1982, 211, 265–275.
17.
KennardM.Cortical reorganization of motor function. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 1942, 48, 227–240.
18.
LennebergE.Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley, 1967.
19.
LevineS.Developmental changes in right hemisphere involvement in face recognition. Technical Report, University of Chicago, 1981.
20.
MarinO. S. M.GordonB.Neuropsychologic aspens of aphasia. In TylerH. R.DawsonD. M. (Eds.), Current neurology. Vol. II. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. Pp. 305–344.
21.
McGloneJ.Sex differences in human brain asymmetry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1980, 3, 215–263.
22.
MolfeseD.Neural mechanisms underlying the processing of speech information in infants and adults. In KirkU. (Ed.), Neuropsychology of language, reading and spelling. New York: Academic Press, 1983. Pp. 109–128.
23.
NetleyC.Dichotic listening performace of hemispherectomized patients. Neuropsychologia, 1972, 10, 233–240.
24.
RasmussenT.MilnerB.The role of early left brain injury in determining lateralization of cerebral speech functions. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1977, 299, 355–369.
25.
SatzP.ZaideJ.Sex differences: Clues or myths on genetic aspects of speech and language disorders. In LudlowC.CooperJ. (Eds.), Genetic aspects of speech and language disorders. New York: Academic Press, 1983. Pp. 85–108.
26.
SchulhoffC.GoodglassH.Dichotic listening, side of brain injury and cerebral dominance. Neuropsychologia, 1969, 8, 149–160
27.
SidtisJ. J.The complex tone test. Neuropsychologia, 1981, 19, 103–112.
28.
SidtisJ. J.Predicting brain organization from dichotic listening performance. Brain and Language, 1982, 17, 287–300.
29.
St. James RobertsI.A reinterpretation of hemispherectomy data without functional brain plasticity. Brain and Language, 1981, 13, 31–53.
30.
WitelsonS. F.Early hemispheric specialization and interhemispheric plasticity. In SegalowitzS. J.GruberF. A. (Eds.), Language development and neurological theory. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Pp. 213–289.
31.
WitelsonS.PallieW.Left hemisphere specialization for language in the newborn: Neuroanatomical evidence of asymmetry. Brain, 1973, 96, 641–647.
32.
WoodsB.The restricted effects of right hemisphere lesions after age one: Wechsler test data. Neuropsychologia, 1980, 18, 65–70.
33.
WoodsB.CareyS.Language deficits after apparent clinical recovery from childhood aphasia. Annals of Neurology, 1979, 5, 405–409.
34.
WoodsB.TeuberH.-L.Early onset of complementary specialization of cerebral hemispheres in man. Transactions of the American Neurological Association, 1973, 98, 113–117.
35.
YoungA. W.EllisH. D.An experimental investigation of developmental differences in ability to recognize faces presented to the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 1976, 13, 495–498.
