Independent and unified consciousness co-existence in commissurotomy cases.

Independent hemispheric consciousness was observed following complete commissurotomy under controlled laboratory conditions that restricted stimulus input and response output to a single hemisphere. Hemispheric specialization was investigated in this way. Consciousness of the self was tested directly as well and found to be represented in each of the hemispheres. Unified consciousness was evidenced in unaltered personality, character, humor, and past knowledge (autobiographical and knowledge of the world). Intact cortico-subcortical projections to intact subcortical regions are offered as explanation for why both unified and independent are possible in the same brain.

Art and brain: insights from neuropsychology, biology and evolution.

Art is a uniquely human activity associated fundamentally with symbolic and abstract cognition. Its practice in human societies throughout the world, coupled with seeming non-functionality, has led to three major brain theories of art. (1) The localized brain regions and pathways theory links art to multiple neural regions. (2) The display of art and its aesthetics theory is tied to the biological motivation of courtship signals and mate selection strategies in animals. (3) The evolutionary theory links the symbolic nature of art to critical pivotal brain changes in Homo sapiens supporting increased development of language and hierarchical social grouping. Collectively, these theories point to art as a multi-process cognition dependent on diverse brain regions and on redundancy in art-related functional representation.

Coevolution of language and symbolic meaning: Co-opting meaning underlying the initial arts in early human culture.

Many of language's components, including communicating symbolic meaning, have neurobiological roots that go back millions of years in evolutionary time. The intersection with the human social survival strategy spawned additional adaptive meaning systems. Under conditions threatening survival in socially oriented human groups, extra-language meaning systems co-opted and adapted to facilitate unity, including the early formats of the arts. They would have percolated into cultural practice for this social purpose and ultimately survival. With evolutionary pressures tapping into biologically inherited, physiologically functioning sensory-motor pathways, anchored specifically in rhythm cognition and motor synchrony output, initial art practice conveyed symbolic group cohesion through communal, all-inclusive synchronously moving dance formations and rhythmically produced vocal or percussion sounds. As with the sounds of language in the deep past, and numerous other cultural behaviors, such nonmaterial early art formats would not have left marks in the archeological record but their evolutionary driven practice would have contributed to adaptive genetic factors woven into brain-behavior evolution. Their practice is likely to have well predated unearthed art-related objects. Consolidation of evidence and notions from language evolution, genetics, human physiology, comparative animal communication, archeology, and climate history in the distant past of early humans in Africa supports the evolutionary driven practice of initial nonmaterial art formats conveying symbolic expressions optimizing group survival. This article is categorized under: Cognitive Biology > Evolutionary Roots of Cognition Linguistics > Evolution of Language Psychology > Comparative Psychology.

Culture and art: Importance of art practice, not aesthetics, to early human culture.

Art is expressed in multiple formats in today's human cultures. Physical traces of stone tools and other archaeological landmarks suggest early nonart cultural behavior and symbolic cognition in the early Homo sapiens (HS) who emerged ~300,000-200,000 years ago in Africa. Fundamental to art expression is the neural underpinning for symbolic cognition, and material art is considered its prime example. However, prior to producing material art, HS could have exploited symbolically through art-rooted biological neural pathways for social purpose, namely, those controlling interpersonal motoric coordination and sound codependence. Aesthetics would not have been the primary purpose; arguments for group dance and rhythmical musical sounds are offered here. In addition, triggers for symbolic body painting are discussed. These cultural art formats could well have preceded material art and would have enhanced unity, inclusiveness, and cooperative behavior, contributing significantly to already existing nonart cultural practices.

Neuroaesthetics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience.

The field of neuroaesthetics has gained in popularity in recent years but also attracted criticism from the perspectives both of the humanities and the sciences. In an effort to consolidate research in the field, we characterize neuroaesthetics as the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience, drawing on long traditions of research in empirical aesthetics on the one hand and cognitive neuroscience on the other. We clarify the aims and scope of the field, identifying relations among neuroscientific investigations of aesthetics, beauty, and art. The approach we advocate takes as its object of study a wide spectrum of aesthetic experiences, resulting from interactions of individuals, sensory stimuli, and context. Drawing on its parent fields, a cognitive neuroscience of aesthetics would investigate the complex cognitive processes and functional networks of brain regions involved in those experiences without placing a value on them. Thus, the cognitive neuroscientific approach may develop in a way that is mutually complementary to approaches in the humanities.

Creativity, brain, and art: biological and neurological considerations.

Creativity is commonly thought of as a positive advance for society that transcends the status quo knowledge. Humans display an inordinate capacity for it in a broad range of activities, with art being only one. Most work on creativity's neural substrates measures general creativity, and that is done with laboratory tasks, whereas specific creativity in art is gleaned from acquired brain damage, largely in observing established visual artists, and some in visual de novo artists (became artists after the damage). The verb "to create" has been erroneously equated with creativity; creativity, in the classic sense, does not appear to be enhanced following brain damage, regardless of etiology. The turning to communication through art in lieu of language deficits reflects a biological survival strategy. Creativity in art, and in other domains, is most likely dependent on intact and healthy knowledge and semantic conceptual systems, which are represented in several pathways in the cortex. It is adversely affected when these systems are dysfunctional, for congenital reasons (savant autism) or because of acquired brain damage (stroke, dementia, Parkinson's), whereas inherent artistic talent and skill appear less affected. Clues to the neural substrates of general creativity and specific art creativity can be gleaned from considering that art is produced spontaneously mainly by humans, that there are unique neuroanatomical and neurofunctional organizations in the human brain, and that there are biological antecedents of innovation in animals.

Split-brain, the right hemisphere, and art: fact and fiction.

The research studies of complete commissurotomy patients (split-brain) in Roger W. Sperry's psychobiology laboratory at Caltech, Pasadena, galvanized the scientific and intellectual world in the 1960s and 1970s. The findings had an important and enduring impact on brain research in countless areas. Interest in hemispheric specialization in particular was sparked by these studies and paved the way for countless discoveries. Right hemisphere specialization for visuospatial functions and facial processing was confirmed with these patients. The further unraveling of right-hemisphere cognition, the "mute" hemisphere, was a major goal in Sperry's laboratory, and much factual knowledge was learned that was not known previously. However, the linking of art and creativity with the right hemisphere was a nonempirically based inference made not by Sperry's lab but rather by others wishing to "assign" functional hemisphericity. The general assumption was that "art" is anchored in spatial cognition, that it is a nonverbal activity requiring imagery and thus must be controlled by the right, nonlanguage hemisphere. To this day, robust evidence that the right specializes in art expression or art perception is yet to be shown, if for no other reason than that art is not a single, unitary form of expression or cognition. The conjectured right hemisphere-art link turned into a popular story that filtered back into science, shaped future research of brain and art, and overlooked other avenues for insights. This chapter traces and explores this background.

Art and brain: the relationship of biology and evolution to art.

Visual art, as with all other arts, is spontaneously created only by humans and is ubiquitously present to various extents in all societies today. Exploring the deep roots of art from cognitive, neurological, genetic, evolutionary, archaeological, and biological perspectives is essential for the full understanding of why we have art, and what art is about. The cognitive basis of art is symbolic, abstract, and referential thinking. However, archaeological markers of symbolic activity by early humans are not associated with art production. There is an enormously large time gap between the activity and the appearance of sporadic art by early Homo sapiens, and another large time delay before appearance of enduring practice of art. The aesthetic aspect of art is not considered to be the initial impetus for creating it. Instead, archaeological markers suggest that the early beginnings of art are associated with development of stratified societies where external visual identifiers by way of body ornaments and decorations were used. The major contributing forces for the consistency in art-making are presumed to be the formation of socioculture, intragroup cooperation, increased group size, survival of skillful artisans, and favorable demographic conditions. The biological roots of art are hypothesized to parallel aspects of our ancestry, specifically animal courtship displays, where signals of health and genetic quality are exhibited for inspection by potential mates. Viewers assess displayed art for talent, skill, communicative, and aesthetic-related qualities. Interdisciplinary discussions of art reflect the current approach to full understanding of the nature of art.

Cognition and art: the current interdisciplinary approach.

For decades discussions of cognition and art were anchored in psychological and perceptual theories alone and were focused primarily on pictorial art, but in recent years a major conceptual shift has altered the discussions. Now, insights, concepts, and findings from archaeology, anthropology, brain evolution, biology, genetics, neurology, and neuroscience together with psychology and perception are leading into deeper scholarly explorations of the topic than was done previously. The implication is that the relationship between cognition and art can be fully grasped only when scholarship from all these disciplines is included in the discussions. We now emphasize that the diverse art forms practiced ubiquitously in human societies have a communicative value with deep biological roots and that art is another expression of the symbolic cognition that is the hallmark of the human brain, but that early societal-type organization played a pivotal role in the enduring practice of art. Moreover, neurological evidence from artists with brain damage suggests that the communicative nature of art is neuronally damage-resistant, much more so than language. Rather than placing pictorial art center stage, as was done previously, the current interdisciplinary approach includes all the arts, points to sociocultural triggers for art practice, to the demographic conditions that prevailed in art's early beginnings, and to the interplay of these evolutionarily adaptive factors with deep biological motivations in the artist. WIREs Cogn Sci 2013, 4:431-439. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1236 The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Attractiveness of natural faces compared to computer constructed perfectly symmetrical faces.

Attractiveness of natural faces was compared to perfectly symmetrical faces constructed on the computer from digitized photographs, in order to assess the role of left-right symmetry in beauty assessment. Three different groups of participants viewed separate series of sequentially presented faces (natural faces, left-left, and right-right) and provided attractiveness ratings on a 5-point Likert scale. The results revealed statistically significant lower ratings for the computer constructed left-left and right-right compared to the natural faces. The discussion is in the context of a biological trend away from perfect symmetry in primates consequent to adaptive evolutionary alteration favoring functional asymmetry in the brain, perception, and face.

Appearance of symmetry, beauty, and health in human faces.

Symmetry is an important concept in biology, being related to mate selection strategies, health, and survival of species. In human faces, the relevance of left-right symmetry to attractiveness and health is not well understood. We compared the appearance of facial attractiveness, health, and symmetry in three separate experiments. Participants inspected front views of faces on the computer screen and judged them on a 5-point scale according to their attractiveness in Experiment 1, health in Experiment 2, and symmetry in Experiment 3. We found that symmetry and attractiveness were not strongly related in faces of women or men while health and symmetry were related. There was a significant difference between attractiveness and symmetry judgments but not between health and symmetry judgments. Moreover, there was a significant difference between attractiveness and health. Facial symmetry may be critical for the appearance of health but it does not seem to be critical for the appearance of attractiveness, not surprisingly perhaps because human faces together with the human brain have been shaped by adaptive evolution to be naturally asymmetrical.