Infantile stimulation induces brain lateralization in rats

Cerebral predominance in the monkey?

The issues raised by Dr. Denenberg are complex, not least because the apparent communalities of hemispheric specialization among birds, rodents, monkeys, and human beings are also associated with negative instances (e.g., for parrots, Nottebohm 1976; for Macaco, other than fuscata, Petersen et al. 1978). To extend the available evidence I would like to refer to the preliminary findings of Garcha et al. (1980) on the monkey.

Sexually dimorphic brain and behavioral asymmetries in the neonatal rat

The 2-deoxy-D-glucose method was used to study asymmetries in cerebral metabolic activity in neonatal rats. Left-right asymmetries in 2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake were observed in hippocampus, diencephalon, cortex, and medulla-pons: 2-deoxy-D-glucose incorporation was greater in right hippocampus, right diencephalon, left cortex, and left medulla-pons. These asymmetries occurred only in females. We also observed neonatal asymmetries in tail position that, in both sexes, were predictive of adult turning preferences; females had right-sided biases in both neonatal and adult characteristics. Collectively these data indicate that cerebral lateralization is sexually dimorphic and is present at birth.

Hemispheric laterality and an evolutionary perspective

Denenberg rightly stresses the importance of studying ethologically meaningful species-specific behavior in animals, and makes the interesting distinction between lateralization at an individual and at a population level. However, in the case of man, I believe Denenberg is wrong in arguing that lateralization in the individual increases with maturation. The overall evidence nowadays tends very much to the contrary. Moreover, with respect to a population, why should it become lateralized? If there is indeed an advantage for the individual in hemispheric specialization, why should the direction of such specialization be so consistent across a majority of individuals, whether human or, as Denenberg points out, other members of the phylum? Is there an evolutionary advantage in most animals' sharing the same direction, or is it a necessary consequence of some other preexisting, more fundamental anatomical, biochemical, or physical property of the organism and its constituents? If the former, why are not all members of the species, rather than just a majority, lateralized in the same direction? (Or, to put it another way, what is the evolutionary advantage to the species or individual of dimorphism, of retaining a minority who polarize in the opposite direction?) If the latter - i.e., if lateralization is a necessary consequence of some prior state - then there should not be any dimorphism, exceptions, or minority members, unless they are somehow disadvantaged in consequence. Indeed, there is some evidence of a cognitive deficit in sinistrals, though it is disputed (see Bradshaw 1980 for review), and others have even suggested that the species as a whole may benefit in some way from such an uneven dimorphism (Levy 1974), but what evidence is there for such propositions with respect to rats, apes, monkeys, or chicks? This is an issue that should be addressed in any general model that includes laterality in animals. [See Corhallis & Morgan: “On the Biological Basis of Human Laterality” BBS 1(2) 1978.]

Right-sided population bias and lateralization of activity in normal rats

Of 602 rats tested for amphetamine-induced or nocturnal rotation (circling behavior), 54.8% (P less than 0.025) had right side biases. Of 292 rats tested in two-lever operant situations, 57.5% (P less than 0.02) preferred the right lever. Right-biased rats were significantly more active and had stronger side preferences than left-biased rats. It is suggested that the increase in right-sided population bias in humans, as compared to rodents, is related to a cortical asymmetry and the phylogenetic increase in cortical modulation of subcortical structures.

Lateralization of functions in the animal brain

The study was performed on mice, rats, and cats. The techniques used were those of conditional reflexes and evoked potentials. The results obtained give proof of the existence of hemisphere specialization of the brain in animals, and some of its properties are described. Motor control is shown to be mainly connected with the left hemisphere. Spatial analysis is mainly lateralized in the right hemisphere, and time analysis in the left one. It has been found that differentiation of absolute characteristics is mainly determined by the right hemisphere, and of relative ones by the left hemisphere. In males the brain has been shown to be more asymmetrical than in females. Proof is given of genetic determination of interhemispheric asymmetry magnitude. It is suggested that interhemispheric asymmetry arose not under the influence of speech and right-handedness but is determined by some more fundamental factors.

Handling in infancy, taste aversion, and brain laterality in rats

Rats were handled for the first 20 days of life or were not disturbed. When adults, they were trained to approach and drink from a bottle containing sweetened milk and were then given an injection of lithium chloride to induce a taste aversion conditioned emotional response. Others were injected with physiological saline. Rats within each of the treatment groups were then randomly assigned to 4 surgical procedures: removal of the right or left neocortex; sham surgery; or no surgery. Postoperatively, they were tested for retention of taste aversion by presenting the sweetened milk and recording the amount consumed. The initial consummatory behavior was very low (showing retention of the aversion) and increased over time. There were no differences in the reacquisition curves of the non-handled groups which had received lithium chloride. The curves of the handled groups did differ: thos with an intact right hemisphere (left neocortical lesion) had the lowest asymptote, followed by the group with an intact left brain, while those with intact whole brains consumed the greatest amount of milk. In the groups given an injection of physiological saline, those with a left hemisphere lesion consumed less milk than the other groups, regardless of their early handling experience. The data show: (1) that the rat's brain is lateralized, with the right hemisphere being preferentially involved in conditioned emotional behavior; and (2) that handling in infancy makes the left hemisphere less suceptible to conditioned fear.

Brain and behavioral asymmetries for spatial preference in rats

Rats were handled daily for 3 min between birth and weaning, or were nonhandled controls. When adult, 4 males from each litter received a right neocortical ablation, a left ablation, a sham operation, or no surgery. A month later all animals were tested in the open field for 4 days, and their initial direction of movement from the starting square (whether right or left) was recorded. Non-handled rats with intact brains (sham-operated and no-surgery groups pooled) had a mean directionality score near zero, thus indicating no right-left spatial preference. However, non-handled animals without a left hemisphere were significantly more biased in going to the ipsilateral side than were their siblings with right-brain ablations. Thus, in non-handled animals behavioral symmetry in making spatial choices is due to balanced brain asymmetry, in which the right hemisphere biases the animal to move leftward while the left hemisphere acts to inhibit this response. In contrast, intact handled rats had a significant preference to go to the left, thus suggesting that in handled animals the right hemisphere controls spatial preference.

The differential effect of right versus left hemispheric cerebral infarction on catecholamines and behavior in the rat

Following right middle cerebral artery ligation in rats, there is a 2-3 week period of spontaneous hyperactivity. Concomitant with this hyperactivity catecholamine concentrations decrease in several areas of the brain including both cortical and subcortical regions. In marked contrast, there are no demonstrable effects of left hemispheric infarction on either spontaneous activity or brain catecholamine concentrations. This asymmetry of behavioral and biochemical response to cerebral infarction cannot be attributed to differences in the lesion size produced in either hemisphere. Feeding and drinking are not affected but the asymmetrical effect on activity can be demonstrated in either a home cage running wheel or an open field environment. It is uncertain whether these findings are the result of hemispheric asymmetries in either catecholaminergic or non-catecholaminergic neurons.

Differential behavioral and biochemical effects of right and left hemispheric cerebral infarction in the rat

Following ligation of the right middle cerebral artery, rats were hyperactive for 2 to 3 weeks whether activity was measured by running wheel revolutions or open field observations. Assays of brain catecholamines revealed 30 percent reductions of norepinephrine in the injured and uninjured cortex and locus coeruleus and a 20 percent reduction of dopamine in the substantia nigra. In contrast, rats with left middle cerebral artery ligations did not become hyperactive and did not show any significant change in catecholamines in any of the brain areas studied. Right and left hemispheric infarctions were comparable in their locations and extent of tissue damage. This lateralization of behavioral and biochemical response to cerebral infarction may be the consequence of anatomical or physiological asymmetries in the brain.