Hemispheric asymmetry of hand and tool perception in left- and right-handers with known language dominance.

Regions in the brain that are selective for images of hands and tools have been suggested to be lateralised to the left hemisphere of right-handed individuals. In left-handers, many functions related to tool use or tool pantomime may also depend more on the left hemisphere. This result seems surprising, given that the dominant hand of these individuals is controlled by the right hemisphere. One explanation is that the left hemisphere is dominant for speech and language in the majority of left-handers, suggesting a supraordinate control system for complex motor sequencing that is required for skilled tool use, as well as for speech. In the present study, we examine if this left-hemispheric specialisation extends to perception of hands and tools in left- and right-handed individuals. We, crucially, also include a group of left-handers with right-hemispheric language dominance to examine their asymmetry biases. The results suggest that tools lateralise to the left hemisphere in most right-handed individuals with left-hemispheric language dominance. Tools also lateralise to the language dominant hemisphere in right-hemispheric language dominant left-handers, but the result for left-hemispheric language dominant left-handers are more varied, and no clear bias towards one hemisphere is found. Hands did not show a group-level asymmetry pattern in any of the groups. These results suggest a more complex picture regarding hemispheric overlap of hand and tool representations, and that visual appearance of tools may be driven in part by both language dominance and the hemisphere which controls the motor-dominant hand.

Analysis of distributions reveals real differences on dichotic listening scores between left- and right-handers.

About 95% of right-handers and 70% of left-handers have a left-hemispheric specialization for language. Dichotic listening is often used as an indirect measure of this language asymmetry. However, while it reliably produces a right-ear advantage (REA), corresponding to the left-hemispheric specialization of language, it paradoxically often fails to obtain statistical evidence of mean differences between left- and right-handers. We hypothesized that non-normality of the underlying distributions might be in part responsible for the similarities in means. Here, we compare the mean ear advantage scores, and also contrast the distributions at multiple quantiles, in two large independent samples (Ns = 1,358 and 1,042) of right-handers and left-handers. Right-handers had an increased mean REA, and a larger proportion had an REA than in the left-handers. We also found that more left-handers are represented in the left-eared end of the distribution. These data suggest that subtle shifts in the distributions of DL scores for right- and left-handers may be at least partially responsible for the unreliability of significantly reduced mean REA in left-handers.

Inconsistent language lateralisation - Testing the dissociable language laterality hypothesis using behaviour and lateralised cerebral blood flow.

BACKGROUND: Most people have strong left-brain lateralisation for language, with a minority showing right- or bilateral language representation. On some receptive language tasks, however, lateralisation appears to be reduced or absent. This contrasting pattern raises the question of whether and how language laterality may fractionate within individuals. Building on our prior work, we postulated (a) that there can be dissociations in lateralisation of different components of language, and (b) these would be more common in left-handers. A subsidiary hypothesis was that laterality indices will cluster according to two underlying factors corresponding to whether they involve generation of words or sentences, versus receptive language. METHODS: We tested these predictions in two stages: At Step 1 an online laterality battery (Dichotic listening, Rhyme Decision and Word Comprehension) was given to 621 individuals (56% left-handers); At Step 2, functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD) was used with 230 of these individuals (51% left-handers). 108 left-handers and 101 right-handers gave useable data on a battery of three language generation and three receptive language tasks. RESULTS: Neither the online nor fTCD measures supported the notion of a single language laterality factor. In general, for both online and fTCD measures, tests of language generation were left-lateralised. In contrast, the receptive tasks were at best weakly left-lateralised or, in the case of Word Comprehension, slightly right-lateralised. The online measures were only weakly correlated, if at all, with fTCD measures. Most of the fTCD measures had split-half reliabilities of at least .7, and showed a distinctive pattern of intercorrelation, supporting a modified two-factor model in which Phonological Decision (generation) and Sentence Decision (reception) loaded on both factors. The same factor structure fitted data from left- and right-handers, but mean scores on the two factors were lower (less left-lateralised) in left-handers. CONCLUSIONS: There are at least two factors influencing language lateralization in individuals, but they do not correspond neatly to language generation and comprehension. Future fMRI studies could help clarify how far they reflect activity in specific brain regions.

Left-Handers Are Less Lateralized Than Right-Handers for Both Left and Right Hemispheric Functions.

Many neuroscientific techniques have revealed that more left- than right-handers will have unusual cerebral asymmetries for language. After the original emphasis on frequency in the aphasia and epilepsy literatures, most neuropsychology, and neuroimaging efforts rely on estimates of central tendency to compare these two handedness groups on any given measure of asymmetry. The inevitable reduction in mean lateralization in the left-handed group is often postulated as being due to reversed asymmetry in a small subset of them, but it could also be due to a reduced asymmetry in many of the left-handers. These two possibilities have hugely different theoretical interpretations. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging localizer paradigms, we matched left- and right-handers for hemispheric dominance across four functions (verbal fluency, face perception, body perception, and scene perception). We then compared the degree of dominance between the two handedness groups for each of these four measures, conducting t-tests on the mean laterality indices. The results demonstrate that left-handers with typical cerebral asymmetries are less lateralized for language, faces, and bodies than their right-handed counterparts. These results are difficult to reconcile with current theories of language asymmetry or of handedness.

The validity and reliability of quantifying hemispheric specialisation using fMRI: Evidence from left and right handers on three different cerebral asymmetries.

Neuroimaging has tremendous potential for quantifying hemispheric specializations. However, the possibilities remain under-utilized, in part, given some of the complexities in quantifying any differences in a reliable, transparent fashion. A second issue with hemispheric asymmetries is that they are extremely one-sided in most people. This skew limits the generalisability of any findings to those participants with rarer forms of cerebral asymmetry. Here, we demonstrate usefulness of an approach developed by Wilke and Lidzba, (J Neurosci Meth, 163, 2007), which allows for threshold-independent estimates of cerebral asymmetry to be calculated in individual participants. We compared these estimates from two separate runs for three different cerebral asymmetries in the same participants. We circumvented the skewed nature of this type of data in two ways; first, we scanned a large number of non-right handed participants, and second, we included asymmetries that favour the right hemisphere in right handers, which we had reason to believe were less skewed than those related to speech and language. Verbal fluency and two visuoperceptual asymmetries were localized in a sample of 33 right handed and 60 non-right handed participants. Laterality indices (LIs), which quantify the direction and strength of an asymmetry, were calculated for BOLD activity relating to language, face perception, and body perception in each run separately. Run 1 - run 2 correlations were all statistically significant and surprisingly sizeable (r = 0.89 to r = 0.62), considering the relatively short amount of time on task within our particular localizers. This noteworthy success validates a number of useful ways that functional neuroimaging can be used to advance understanding of cerebral asymmetries.

The depth and breadth of multiple perceptual asymmetries in right handers and non-right handers.

Several non-verbal perceptual and attentional processes have been linked with specialization of the right cerebral hemisphere. Given that most people have a left hemispheric specialization for language, it is tempting to assume that functions of these two classes of dominance are related. Unfortunately, such models of complementarity are notoriously hard to test. Here we suggest a method which compares frequency of a particular perceptual asymmetry with known frequencies of left hemispheric language dominance in right-handed and non-right handed groups. We illustrate this idea using the greyscales and colourscales tasks, chimeric faces, emotional dichotic listening, and a consonant-vowel dichotic listening task. Results show a substantial "breadth" of leftward bias on the right hemispheric tasks and rightward bias on verbal dichotic listening. Right handers and non-right handers did not differ in terms of proportions of people who were left biased for greyscales/colourscales. Support for reduced typical biases in non-right handers was found for chimeric faces and for CV dichotic listening. Results are discussed in terms of complementary theories of cerebral asymmetries, and how this type of method could be used to create a taxonomy of lateralized functions, each categorized as related to speech and language dominance, or not.