Return To HOME Page
Left Brain… Right
Brain… What’s The Difference?
Although there were only four lobes
in the cerebral cortex, the frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital lobes,
each of these lobes was further divided into “left and right” sections. As
such, a person had a left frontal lobe and a right frontal lobe, a left temporal
lobe and a right temporal lobe, a left parietal lobe and a right parietal lobe,
a left occipital lobe, and a right occipital lobe.
Certain critical language and/or
communication functions were usually located in a specific part of the brain –
either left or right. For example, Wernicke’s area, associated with the
understanding of language was located in what was often referred to as the left
temporoparietal cortex, whereas Broca’s area, normally associated with the
function of speech production, was an area found in the left inferior frontal
lobe. Yet, although there were specific regions in the brain associated with
specific functions, clearly, the brain had an amazing ability to adapt as
evidenced by the fact that when brain trauma occurred, functions could seemingly
“relocate” themselves within the brain. Although how the brain accomplished
this was not fully understood, this, clearly, was well documented
scientifically.
Amazingly, science had confirmed
that in some individuals who suffered from a specific type of brain injury known
as arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) in the left frontal lobe, believed to
occur while still in the womb, when the left frontal lobe was anesthetized,
speech production was not impacted as it would be in normal persons and as such,
science believed that “speech production functions” in these persons must have
somehow “relocated” within the brain. In these same individuals, if the left
part of the brain dealing with the understanding of language – Wernicke’s area -
was anesthetized, understanding of language was impacted, as it would be in a
normal person. Interestingly, researchers found that, in these individuals,
those areas activated during language production – as indicated via functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) – were not in the left hemisphere (where
language production usually occurred) - but in the right! In addition, a small
area in the left hemisphere not usually associated with language production also
appeared to be activated in these individuals.
Persons interested in reading more
on this amazing subject and the work of Dr. Ronald M. Lazar of Columbia
University’s Department of Neurology and his paper entitled Neuropsychological
Function And Brain Arteriovenous Malformations: Redefining Eloquence As A Risk
For Treatment, published in Neurosurg Focus 11(5): Article 4, 2001, could do so
by going to either
http://www.neurosurgery.org/focus/nov01/11-5-4.pdf or, for the easier
to understand version, to
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/00/10/brainDamage.html.
Interestingly, when it came to
understanding the brain, the whole issue of left verses right certainly appeared
to add an extra “twist” for scientists – especially when functions seemingly
“relocated” in patients who were known to have brain injury. The issue of the
“left brain” verses the “right brain” certainly also had significant
implications in the study of autism. In a normal brain, incoming sensory input
and control of the body appeared to usually “cross over”. As such, the “left
brain” for example, was involved in the processing of sensory input and control
of the right side of the body and vice versa. There had been a great deal of
research into the “right” verses “left” brain and how dominance of one side
appeared to impact the type of person we were. In addition, researchers agreed
that there appeared to be gender differences in “right brain” and “left brain”
dominance.
For example, according to work
done by researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo School of
Medicine, males were believed to scan faces with
the right brain, whereas females were believed to scan faces with the left brain.
[source: D.E. Everhart, J.L. Shucard, T. Quatrin, D.W. Shucard, "Sex-Related
Differences in Event-Related Potentials, Face Recognition, and Facial Affect
Processing in Prepubertal Children," Neuropsychology, 2001, Vol. 15, No. 3,
329–341,
http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0709014.htm].
Given that the left-brain attended
to “the whole” whereas the right brain attended to “details”, perhaps this could
explain why my son Zachary had such a difficult time with “looking me in the
face”. In my second book, Breaking The Code To Remove The Shackles Of Autism:
When The Parts Are Not Understood And The Whole Is Lost!, I had stated that it
appeared to me that in order for the child with autism to understand “the
whole”, he had to first understand “the parts” that made up “the whole”. As
such, if faces were scanned by the “right brain” in boys, it certainly appeared
that this was at least in part, an explanation for what I was seeing in my
son. If Zachary needed to understand first “the parts” to understand
“the whole”, it would make sense that he would have difficulty with faces if
they were processed as “wholes” and not “parts”. This whole issue
of “left brain” verses “right brain” certainly was an interesting one when it
came to understanding children with autism. The following table as it related
to “left brain” verses “right brain” was based on work done N. Geschwind,
entitled Specializations Of The Human Brain, published in Scientific American,
241, 180-199 in 1979.
Left Brain |
Right Brain |
Verbal |
Nonverbal |
Intellect |
Intuition |
Analytical |
Holistic |
Convergent |
Divergent |
Intellectual |
Sensuous |
Serial |
Parallel |
Focal |
Diffuse |
Deductive |
Imaginative |
Active |
Receptive |
Discrete |
Continuous |
Abstract |
Concrete |
Algebraic |
Geometric |
Propositional |
Oppositional |
Propositional |
Affective |
Realistic |
Impulsive |
Transformational |
Associative |
Lineal |
Nonlineal |
Historical |
Timeless |
Explicit |
Tacit |
Objective |
Subjective |
Activation |
Arousal |
I had found this table relating to
Geschwind’s work on the website of Macquarie University (Sidney, Austrlia)
Department of Linguistics. This website provided a good, easy to understand
basic overview entitled “Neuroanatomy and Neurophysiology of Speech and
Language” and was available at
http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/units/sph302/neuroling/ .
A little more research on the
Internet provided more still. Other words I had come to understand as being
associated with either left or right included:
Left Brain |
Right Brain |
Logical |
Random |
Sequential |
Intuitive |
Focus on parts |
Focus on whole |
Analytical |
Synthesizing |
Rational |
Holistic |
Reality based |
Fantasy oriented |
Symbolic |
Concrete |
Respond to meaning of words |
Respond to tone of voice |
Respond to logic |
Respond to emotion |
Respects rules, regulations,
deadlines |
Less attentive to rules,
regulations, deadlines |
Greater ability to distinguish
between right and wrong |
Less able to distinguish between
right and wrong |
More aware of time |
Less aware of time |
Plans ahead |
Impulsive |
Better with names |
Better with faces |
Less social |
More social |
Use few motions to speak |
Use motions to speak |
Punctual |
Less punctual |
Prefers more formal study
atmosphere |
Prefers sound or music in
background while studying |
Prefers good lighting when
studying |
Prefers to move around when
studying |
Order focused |
Less order focused |
Auditory receptive |
Able to tell if someone is lying
or joking |
Specializes in words, reading,
writing (agreed upon rules) |
Specializes in music, art,
visual-spatial, visual-motor functions (more creative) |
Again, from the Macquarie
University Department of Linguistics website, under a section entitled Sex,
Brain and Language”, the following comment was found:
“Springer and Deutsh (1981)
discuss evidence for language related sex differences in brain function. There
is some evidence that females have a more bilateral (across the two hemispheres)
distribution of language functions than males. [end of quote, R. Mannell, Dept.
of Linguistics, Macquarie University,
http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/units/sph302/neuroling/].
And finally, this quote, regarding
lesions to the thalamus, from the same Macquarie University website – I quote:
“Damage here results in
verbal fluency and word repetition problems. The thalamus appear to be
involved in directing attention to verbal input, in retrieving information from
verbal memory and to play some role in the regulation of the activity of speech
production muscle activity.”
[end of quote R.
Mannell, Dept. of Linguistics, Macquarie University,
http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/units/sph302/neuroling/].
I had, again, found this very
interesting given the thalamus was also known to be involved in matters relating
to “the conscious” and “subconscious”. Interestingly, the one sense that could
bypass the thalamus was the sense of smell! Note that the sense of smell was
also the only sense co-located in the frontal lobe along with “language
production” functions. Yet, clearly, the above quote indicated that the
thalamus was somehow with speech muscles. Motor functions were also known to
be located in the frontal lobe – along with language production and smell, but
they were very much “coordinated” by the cerebellum – the very part of the brain
so often shown to be much smaller in children with autism in MRIs – the
cerebellum – the very part of the brain now believed by Dr. Jay Geidd to take
well over twenty years (20) to mature and hence, believed to be more impacted by
“environmental factors”. Could those environmental factors include things like
mercury, aluminum, iron, and/or viruses? In my opinion, that certainly seemed
to be a possibility – especially given the Simpsonwood meeting transcript
indicated that developing or immature cells appeared to be the most
“susceptible” to mercury injury.
Certainly, the case could be made
that if the cerebellum took over twenty (20) years to mature that, at birth, or
in a child, this part of the brain certainly had to be among the most immature
of the immature cells found in the brain.
As I neared the completion of this
book, an article by Geoffrey Cowley had appeared in the September 8th,
2003 edition of Newsweek entitled Girls, Boys and Autism. In this article,
the researchers appeared to be arguing that autism was nothing more than a
different style of learning and that there might be a “left brain dominance
gene” that might help explained autism. Honestly, I could not help but laugh
and cry as I read the article. It was, in my opinion, yet another article in a
major publication that simply showed how the author, truly, did not understand
the many faces of autism and I believed that this article did more harm than
good in trying to help the general public understand “autism”. Particularly
troubling for most parents was perhaps the following quote from this article in
the September 8th, 2003 Newsweek article:
"If Baron-Cohen is right, autism is
not just a disease in need of a cure. It's a mental style that people can learn
to accommodate. Sometimes it's even a gift." [end of quote, Geoffrey Cowley,
Girls, Boys, and Autism, Newsweek, September 8th, 2003].
A gift?
I could only suggest that
Baron-Cohen spend a week or so with the parents and children who had been so
devastated by autism. Perhaps that term “gift” would then be changed to a more
appropriate word so many parents of children with autism feel they suffer along
with their children – “an imprisonment” - because, all too common was the very
real fact that the life of not only the child, but of the entire family was
stolen by “autism”.
The other very obvious reason that
“I did not buy this theory” had to do with the comments made to the effect that
this “research” helped explain sensitivities in terms of sensory input – light,
sight, sound, touch sensitivity, etc. in children with autism.
The simple fact was that I knew
that casein (milk protein) and gluten (grain proteins) were known to act as
hallucinogens on the brain of children with autism. When I changed Zachary’s
diet, and then, later added enzymes to help break down trace amounts of casein
and gluten from hidden sources I may have missed, Zachary’s light, sight, sound
and touch sensitivities were greatly reduced. If this “theory” were true, that
should not be the case. A change in diet should not change sensory sensitivity
and yet, I knew of hundreds of families who had changed the diets of their
children and had experienced the same thing I had seen in my son. This had
also been the case for families who had engaged in chelation therapy – a process
whereby metals were removed from the body. Persons wanting to learn more about
that could visit the enzymes and autism or autism and mercury Yahoo groups
online at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnzymesandAutism/
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autism-Mercury/
There were plenty of parents on
these discussion boards who would attest to these facts.
I, personally, thought Baron-Cohen
needed to “go back to the drawing board” – in a “major” kind of way! :o)
It has obviously been known for
quite some time that there are gender differences in how boys and girls process
information, however, that was true of all boys and girls – not just those with
autism – and to suggest that “left brain dominance” was related to some kind of
a gene that made one more susceptible to autism was in my opinion, simply
ludicrous. The differences in left-brain verses right brain dominance have
been known for quite some time – as evidenced by the fact that Gerchwind’s work
was published in 1979 – close to thirty five (35) years ago. Yet, the fact
remained that the explosion in autism was a fairly recent phenomenon and as
such, in my opinion, the “left brain” vs “right brain” dominance theory could
not possibly be used in explaining the “cause” of autism.
It was also interesting that the
Macquire University Department of Linguistics article also stated that brain
asymmetry appeared to very much be a function of left or right handedness. How
interesting indeed!
I had no doubt that the brain
formed more neurons in “the dominant side”. Now, however, more than ever, I
questioned many of those studies on brain asymmetry and autism – I still did not
know if my son was right or left handed – he did some tasks with one hand, and
other tasks with the other.
So, if handedness also played a
role in those parts of the brain dealing with language, how did all this fit
into “all those studies” on autism and brain asymmetry? It seemed to me that
there could be a few “confounding variables” not being taken into consideration
in some of those MRI scans or studies stating that “brain asymmetry” was a
problem in children with autism.
How did we know that the brain
asymmetry seen in these children was not simply the brain “adapting” to
compensate for injuries sustained, a brain developing “more neurons” in those
areas that worked best in an attempt to “break the code”? In my opinion, brain
asymmetry, in and of itself was not necessarily “a bad thing”. It seemed to me
that indeed, perhaps the brain had been “designed” to work this way and provided
for man a way to somehow adapt to or cope with a brain injury.
Indeed, there certainly appeared
to be many “backup systems” in the human body. We had two eyes, two ears, two
hands, two arms, two feet, two legs, two kidneys, two ovaries or testicles, two
sides to the heart, two lungs… and two parts to the brain… and in all of these,
if one part failed, the other was there to help “take over” or assume functions
no longer being performed by the “damaged part”. Why should the brain be any
different than any other part of the body? Could “asymmetry” in the brain of
children with autism not simply be testimony to the marvelous creation that was
man himself – especially when it came to – the human brain!
As the mother of a child with
autism, I simply did not see brain asymmetry as “a bad thing” and suspected it
may actually be just the opposite – a good thing. Of course I was no doctor or
neurologist – these were only my opinions!
Certainly, the fact that boys were
known to be more left-brain dominant and girls were believed to be more right
brain dominant helped us to explain what we saw in these children – but, it
certainly did not provide a “cause” for autism. As such, again, I felt
Baron-Cohen certainly did need to “go back to the drawing board” – in a “major”
kind of way! Based on what I had seen in my son, and the research I had done –
as a mother - there assumptions and conclusions had been very much “off base.
Funny how there just seemed to be so many studies that stated “autism” was a
“gene problem” and yet, no “gene” had been identified for this tremendous
impairment of the brain. It just seemed to me that if “a bad gene” was behind
all of this – we would have found it by now – because, certainly, something that
caused “so much damage” should be fairly obvious as a “mutation”. It just
seemed that such a critical mutation would have long ago been identified given
all the bright scientists out there.
I guess the best thing I could
suggest to those scientists was to read the Simpsonwood transcript and also view
that University of Calgary video – perhaps then, the real issues with autism
would start to fall a little more “into focus”. We just had too many of these
studies I now viewed as “nice try… but now cigar… parents were no longer that
naïve!” :o)
In both my second and third books,
I had explained how, in my opinion, I could explain almost everything I saw in
my son if I assumed little or no communication among the various parts of the
brain. I also believed that because of what appeared to be lack of
communication among the various parts of the brain, it also seemed as though
those functions co-located within a specific part of the brain (i.e., functions
within the temporal lobe, etc.) appeared to have magnified communication.
Thus, if my theory were correct,
it would make sense that given boys were more “left brain focused”, that these
functions would be “more magnified” in the child with autism. Thus, in my
opinion, the “left vs right brain dominance theory” helped us to understand what
we saw in these children, but it certainly did not provide a “cause” for autism.
As I had stated on so many
occasions, it appeared to me that my son perceived the world in “bits and
pieces” and that he had to understand “the parts” in order to understand “the
whole”. Given the brain structure and function, the theory of little or no
communication among the various parts of the brain certainly supported this
reasoning. For example, the olfactory cortex and motor functions were found in
the frontal lobe. Auditory processing and olfactory processing were found in
the temporal lobe. Touch perception was found in the parietal lobe. Visual
processing was found in the occipital lobe. As such, sensory input entered the
brain in different parts of the brain, and if there was limited or no
communication among the various parts of the brain, then, Zachary’s world – his
sensory input – could certainly be perceived as “bits and pieces” that he would
then have to painstakingly “put together” – consciously - in order to understand
the whole.
Note that the integration of
sensory input to perceive a single concept was a function located in the
parietal lobe. The integration of central nervous system (brain and spinal
cord) and peripheral nervous system (everything else) was a function located in
the thalamus. Thus, if input was not flowing properly to these areas due to
lack of neural connectivity, surely, one’s world could certainly be perceived as
“bits and pieces” that did not appear to fit together properly, and hence, the
title of my second book - Breaking The Code To Remove The Shackles Of Autism:
When The Parts Are Not Understood And The Whole Is Lost! This issue was also
discussed in my third book – Breaking The Code: Putting Pieces In Place! I
encouraged all parents to read both of these books in order to better understand
why it was that I came to understand those things I did in my son and why I
became convinced that the underlying issues in children with autism had to do
with severed neural connections that had to somehow be rebuilt – connections
that would help the “left” and “right” brain work together in a more efficient
and effective manner.
As I looked at these various words
used to describe “left brain” or “right brain” dominance, although there
obviously were some things that indicated Zachary had “dominance” for certain
things on the “right side”, clearly, in looking at this list, my son was “left
brain focused”.
As such parents had to have an
understanding of the “dominant” side of their child in order to best help that
child learn. The “cookie cutter” one method for all simply could not be used
for children with autism. Clearly, some children could be more “right brain”
focused while others – like Zachary, and I suspected most boys – could be more
“left brain” focused. Likewise, I very much suspected girls were more “right
brain dominant”. As such, perhaps the key to helping these children was to
also consider materials for either “left” or “right” dominant focused children.
These children had so many
challenges to face that it was in working with their strengths that they could
best be helped to begin to decode their world. As more of the “code to life”
was broken it would then be easier for these children to come to use “less
dominant” functions in order to come to an even greater understanding of their
world. I just felt that to use those things that were “less dominant” or
“weaker areas” in a child would not be as effective as using those functions in
which a child was known to be “strong or dominant”. In my opinion, to reach a
child with autism, you had to make things as easy as possible initially, and
then, as the child began to communicate and understand his world, you could then
go from there to strengthen areas of greater weakness.
As I looked at this list to
describe “left brain” vs “right brain”, clearly, although Zachary was more “left
brain” focused in my opinion, there were some things that were critical in which
he clearly was more “right brain focused”. For example, the fact that Zachary
loved seeing me use “signs” or “motions” for language told me that in this
particular aspect, he was more “right brain focused” when it came to language.
Also, if given a choice, I knew Zachary preferred to have soft music playing
while he also worked on the computer, again, indicating more strength in this
particular function on the right side of the brain. The one thing that
certainly “stood out” as I looked at all this information, however, was the fact
that Zachary - overwhelmingly – had left brain dominance. Very, very few
things on the “right side” applied to Zachary – yet, the critical one having to
do with language, again, was that involving motion in speech – of that – there
was absolutely no doubt in my mind! Surely the fact that the “left brain” was
so dominant in Zachary had to impact the numbers of neural connections and
hence, neural growth, in very specific parts of the brain – and thus, brain
asymmetry.
One could certainly get lost in
“all those brain studies”, however, my point here was simply to raise the issue
that there were many factors that played into brain asymmetry – including things
like left or right handedness – things that in and of themselves, appeared to
have very little to do with autism in and of itself. Certainly, these factors
had to be considered, however, in looking at issues of brain asymmetry and left
or right brain dominance. As such, I encouraged all parents to be cautious of
studies on brain asymmetry to ensure that such variables had been taken into
consideration. There were many, many other issues pertaining to “brain
studies” I felt parents should be aware of. These had been provided in my
second book – in a section entitled, “All Those Brain Studies… What Do They
Really Tell Us?”.
As I thought about so many issues
relating to autism, clearly, there was simply no denying that Zachary, indeed,
was very much “left brain dominant”. Without a doubt, he was very much a boy
that thrived on rules!
Zachary’s tremendous need for
having things “fit together properly” when it came to language was clearly
evident in something he had asked me to do lately. As I made my bed one
morning, Zachary was near the window, looking outside as he recited his alphabet
– something he still liked to do now and then. On this particular occasion,
however, he realized there was something that was “not quite right” when it came
to the alphabet and how it worked.
When Zachary got to the letter
“w”, he hesitated and said: “mom, spell w… starts with a – “d”…”. Of course,
I knew right away what the issue was. Before I answered, even though I knew
myself to be more of a “right brain” person and as such, more impulsive, I knew
that for “this answer”, I had to think a little more before I responded.
I could not simply spell “w” as
“w”… because clearly, Zachary had picked up on the fact that “w” had a sound
that started with a “d”. As such, I said: “double equals 2, “w” equals 2
“v’s” or 2 “u’s” put together… w… “d-o-u-b-l-e” spells “double” … double… u… the
letter has a sound like a “u”, but it looks like a “ v + v… 2 “v”s together…”
but it says “wuh”…. And there I had it, the spelling for “w”… only in spelling
“w”, I had to provide a “spelling” to match the fact that it started with a “d”,
a “sound” for the letter itself that “sounded” like a “u”, a “look” that
“looked” like a “double v”... and the phonics for a letter that said “wuh”!
Only “w” , “y” and “h” were
letters of the alphabet for which the phonics were very different than the
letter as it would be recited in the alphabet. Zachary had not yet picked up
on the fact that the letter “y” was also an “oddball letter” because that
letter, when recited as part of the alphabet, had a name with a sound that
started with the sound for “w”… “wuh”. Likewise he had not picked up on the
fact that “h” really sounded like a letter starting with an “a + ch” sound.
All other letters were recited or
“named” in the alphabet in a way that very much matched the actual phonics for
that letter. Certainly, there were a few very subtle differences, but, they
were so subtle, that Zachary had really not noticed them – at least not yet!
Of course, when I finished giving
Zachary “the spelling of – w”, I also made it a point to tell him this was a
“mixed up letter”. He had a good understanding of what “mixed up” meant and so
he found it very funny when I told him, “w is such a mixed up letter… it’s so
silly…”. This little example had clearly showed me that for Zachary, rules were
very important - as were sounds – in the understanding of language!
As I thought about this, I could
not help but wonder who the genius was that had named a letter that looked like
“2 v’s” stuck together a “double u”. I thought, surely, he could have called
it at least a “double v”. But, then, I soon realized that in writing this
letter, it was often written in a “curved” manner so that it could actually look
like either two “v’s” or two “u’s” stuck together. As such, I decided to add a
little more to the spelling of “w” for Zachary – only this additional
explanation involved motion to help him understand the issue. As I explained
“double equals 2” and said “double u” equals “2 u’s” or 2 v’s”, I literally
motioned the formation of “2 u’s together” in the air to form “w” in a “curved”
way and then did the same thing to show “2 v’s” as I showed Zachary it could be
either one or the other.
Having gone through this little
“spell w” exercise made me think that, perhaps, we should rename this letter -
“wobble u” or “wobble v”. :o)
Who would ever have thought that
“spell w” could be so complicated! Yet, clearly, Zachary, a very “left brain”
child, needed “an entire explanation” for this very odd letter… one of only a
few letters that obviously had a sound that did not match the “recited or named
alphabet letter”.
Although there was still
disagreement on this issue, it seemed many in science were indicating that boys
were indeed generally more “left brain focused” than were girls and that girls
were more “right brain focused”. If that were true, it certainly had some
rather interesting implications. For example, if one was more “creative” or
“right brain dominant”, as opposed to “left brain dominant”, did that not mean
that persons who were “right brain dominant” would have a better ability to
“think for themselves” whereas those who were “left brain focused” would be more
dependent on “rules” or things they had been taught? This certainly made me
chuckle given the fact I constantly joked and reminded my husband of the fact
that God did not see his creation as “just right” until after he had created
woman – that partner in life who provided “balance” for man and was always
more than happy (that would be the emotional side to woman) to
provide input (that would be the creative side to woman) to allow “man” see
things in a whole new light. :o)
Again… all very interesting… and a
little funny… indeed! As I considered all this, I also could not help but think
about how all this related to functions that were co-located within specific
parts of the brain. For example, language production and motor activity were
co-located in the frontal lobe. Zachary, clearly a “left brain dominant” child
still clearly was absolutely impacted by the use of motions in language
production and the understanding of language. As I had stated earlier, he
absolutely loved anything that had to do with motion in communication, whether
that was in teaching him new words or in communication as play or some other
activity.
For example, if my husband rubbed
his hands together in anticipation of “going after Zachary to catch him”,
Zachary became very, very excited and just loved that “motion” on the part of my
husband as he played with Zachary. So many of these “small things” I never
would have noticed before now leaped out at me as I considered the area of
communication and how Zachary reacted to various forms of communication –
written, verbal/auditory, sight, motion. Of these, clearly motion involving
the hands and auditory forms of communication were those that most impacted
Zachary as we worked with him.
Given production of language was
co-located with motion in the frontal lobe and auditory processing was
co-located in the temporal lobe along with the understanding of language, of
course, that made sense. It also made sense to me that communication involving
the perception of body parts (i.e., sign language or motion of the hands) would
help with the understanding of language given that function (perception of body
parts) was also in the temporal lobe. This also certainly helped explain why
“body language” helped with the understanding of language or could be such a
powerful means of non-verbal communication. Likewise, the recognition of faces
was located in the temporal lobe and memory related to the recognition of faces
was in the right temporal lobe. Thus, again, given the understanding of
language was in the temporal lobe, did it not make sense that we best understood
those we recognized and did it not make sense that our “socialization” functions
as they related to others would “work best” when interacting with those we
recognized – such as family members and/or friends.
There was no denying that the
study of language as it related to language production and comprehension was
very interesting indeed when one considered the many, many variables that played
into “communication” – motor activity, muscle functions, emotions, smells,
tastes, touch, body language and/or other visual cues, memories, imagination,
and possibly conscious and/or subconscious communication, etc. Human
communication certainly was fascinating to say the least!
Back To Book 4 Chapter Outline
Return To HOME Page
|