Structural Asymmetries in the Human Forebrain and the Forebrain of Non-human Primates and Rats

Zilles, Karl; Dabringhaus, Andreas; Geyer, Stefan; Amunts, Katrin; Qü, Meishu; Schleicher, Axel; Gilissen, Emmanuel; Schlaug, Gottfried; Steinmetz, H.

doi:10.1016/0149-7634(95)00072-0

Cited by 124 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings further suggest that the hand preferences are expressed because of endogenous factors, perhaps related to a specialization of the left hemisphere for motor skill. This hypothesis warrants further research, perhaps using brain imaging technologies that are now being used with nonhuman primates, including great apes (e.g., Hopkins & Marino, 2000;Hopkins, Marino, Rilling, & MacGregor, 1998;Pilcher, Hammock, & Hopkins, 2000;Zilles et al, 1996).Finally, the correlation between the data originally reported by Hopkins (1995) and those reported in this article was significant and positive. These results cannot be attributed to learning associated with reinforcement history because the subjects were not tested on the TUBE task during the intervening 6-year period.…”

mentioning

confidence: 54%

The use of bouts and frequencies in the evaluation of hand preferences for a coordinated bimanual task in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): An empirical study comparing two different indices of laterality.

Hopkins¹,

Fernández-Carriba²,

Wesley³

et al. 2001

Journal of Comparative Psychology

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hand preferences for a coordinated bimanual task were assessed in 109 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Hand preference was evaluated for 4 test sessions using bouts and frequencies of hand use to compare the sensitivity of each level of analysis in evaluating individual variation in handedness. Overall, significant population-level right-handedness was found using several different measures of hand use. Handedness indices based on bouts and frequencies were highly and significantly correlated. Moreover, hand preferences were consistent across tests despite efforts to situationally bias preference during each test. Taken together, these data do not support the view that bouts are a better level of analysis for evaluating hand preference. The results further suggest that hand preferences for coordinated bimanual actions are not influenced by situational factors and may reflect an inherent specialization of the left hemisphere for motor skill.The issue of whether nonhuman primates exhibit population-level handedness has been a topic of historical and recent debate (Ettlinger, 1988;Fagot & Vauclair, 1991;MacNeilage, StuddertKennedy, & Lindblom, 1987;Marchant & McGrew, 1991;Ward & Hopkins, 1993;Warren, 1980 NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript sample display the same directional bias in hand use. The historical view held that handedness was bimodally distributed in nonhuman species including primates (Warren, 1980), but this view has recently been challenged by a host of behavioral Studies (see Bradshaw & Rogers, 1993;Hook-Costigan & Rogers, 1997;Hopkins, 1996;Hopkins & Morris, 1993;Lehman, 1993;Ward, Milliken, & Stafford, 1993, for reviews). Of specific interest to this article is the evidence of population-level right-handedness in chimpanzees and other great apes. Some have argued that there is a 2:1 ratio of right-to left-handed individuals (Corballis, 1997;Hopkins, 1999b;Hopkins & Pearson, 2000). In contrast, others have argued that the evidence is weak for population-level right-handedness in apes and that some Studies reporting evidence of population-level right-handedness are methodologically or statistically flawed (McGrew & Marchant, 1997).Presently, the debate over whether great apes (and other nonhuman primates) exhibit population-level hand preference centers on two issues, both of which are subject to different interpretation. One issue is whether population-level right-handedness is restricted to captive populations of apes, and this issue is not addressed in this article. The second issue, which is addressed in this article, is whether the use of frequencies contrasted with bouts of lateralized behavior reflects the same or different manifestations of lateral bias at the individual and population level. Specifically, Marchant (1994,1997), as well as others (Boesch, 1991;Byrne & Byrne, 1991), have argued that bouts are a better measure of laterality in hand use than the use of the raw frequencies. The central premise of this argument, outlined by McGrew and ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 54%

The use of bouts and frequencies in the evaluation of hand preferences for a coordinated bimanual task in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): An empirical study comparing two different indices of laterality.

Hopkins¹,

Fernández-Carriba²,

Wesley³

et al. 2001

Journal of Comparative Psychology

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar dissociation may be evident in nonhuman primates, and this differentiation may allow for a neurological distinction between various handedness tasks used within the same sample of subjects or between different species. With the increasing use of neural imaging technologies with nonhuman primates, such as structural magnetic resonance imaging (Hopkins & Marino, 2000;Hopkins & Rilling, in press;Hopkins, Marino, Rilling, & MacGregor, 1998;Zilles et al, 1996), testing this hypothesis seems feasible in the immediate future. Mean HISUM1 and HISUM2 scores for each subsample of scores, depending on the number of measures deriving the individual score.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) handedness: Variability across multiple measures of hand use.

Hopkins¹,

Pearson²

2000

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined intertask consistency in handedness across multiple measures of hand use in a sample of 187 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Hand preferences for 2 to 6 measures were collected from the sample, and hand preference scores were derived on the basis of the individual hand preferences for each measure. Seven of 15 possible intratask correlations were significant, with some degree of clustering depending on the motor demands of the tasks. Two overall measures of handedness revealed population-level right-handedness in the chimpanzees, although the degree of bias was reduced for chimpanzees tested on more than 3 measures of hand use. The results are interpreted in the context of several recent studies that proposed theoretical models of handedness in nonhuman primates.Approximately 90% of humans report themselves as being right-handed (Annett, 1985;Porac & Coren, 1981). The historical view has been that nonhuman animals, particularly nonhuman primates, do not exhibit population-level handedness (see Ettlinger, 1988;Lehman, 1993;Warren, 1980). In recent years, behavioral research in a variety of nonhuman primate species using a multitude of tasks has revealed that population-level handedness can be found in some species for certain measures (Bradshaw & Rogers, 1993;Hopkins, 1996;Ward & Hopkins, 1993). In addition to handedness, evidence of perceptual and cognitive asymmetries in a host of animal species has been reported (Bisazza, Rogers, & Vallortigara, 1998;Bradshaw & Rogers, 1993). These cumulative data clearly challenge the historical view purporting the uniqueness of hemispheric specialization to humans.With the emergence of evidence of hemispheric specialization and handedness in animals, a fundamental question has arisen: Is the manifestation of handedness in animals the same as in humans? Corballis (1992) has suggested that nonhuman primate handedness reflects a "weaker" form of handedness than is evident in humans. Roney and King (1993) have made a similar argument with respect tO differences between human and nonhuman primate handedness. More recently, Marchant (1994,1997) have dichotomized laterality of hand functions on the basis of consistency in use within and between subjects and tasks. Specifically, according to McGrew and Marchant (1997), hand preference refers to within-task and within-subject variability in hand preference. Task specialization refers to situations in which most individuals within a sample show the same hand preference for one and only one measure. Manual specialization refers to circumstances in which the same individual uses the same hand across task, but all individuals within that sample show inconsistent preferences. Finally, true handedness reflects consistent hand use across all measures and individuals in a sample. McGrew and Marchant 1997) argued that most studies in nonhuman primates have failed to meet their definition of true handedness, and most fall into the categories of either Byrne & Byrne, 1991;Diamond & McGrew, 1994). Thus, according to...

show abstract

“…Cytoarchitectural features were relied upon for identification of cortical regions due to individual variation in their gross anatomical location (e.g., Amunts et al, 1996;Zilles et al, 1996;Petrides and Pandya, 1999;Rademacher et al, 2001). Cortical layers were analyzed separately as layers I, II, III, and V/VI.…”

Section: Identifying Cortical Regions and Layersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical dopaminergic innervation among humans, chimpanzees, and macaque monkeys: A comparative study

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we assessed the possibility that humans differ from other primate species in the supply of dopamine to the frontal cortex. To this end, quantitative comparative analyses were performed among humans, chimpanzees, and macaques using immunohistochemical methods to visualize tyrosine hydroxylase-immunoreactive axons within the cerebral cortex. Axon densities and neuron densities were quantified using computer-assisted stereology. Areas 9 and 32 were chosen for evaluation due to their roles in higher-order executive functions and theory of mind, respectively. Primary motor cortex (area 4) was also evaluated because it is not directly associated with cognition. We did not find an overt quantitative increase in cortical dopaminergic innervation in humans relative to the other primates examined. However, several differences in cortical dopaminergic innervation were observed among species which may have functional implications. Specifically, humans exhibited a sublaminar pattern of innervation in layer I of areas 9 and 32 that differed from that of macaques and chimpanzees. Analysis of axon length density to neuron density among species revealed that humans and chimpanzees together deviated from macaques in having increased dopaminergic afferents in layers III and V/VI of areas 9 and 32, but there were no phylogenetic differences in area 4. Finally, morphological specializations of axon coils that may be indicative of cortical plasticity events were observed in humans and chimpanzees, but not macaques. Our findings suggest significant modifications of dopamine's role in cortical organization occurred in the evolution of the apes, with further changes in the descent of humans.

show abstract

Structural Asymmetries in the Human Forebrain and the Forebrain of Non-human Primates and Rats

Cited by 124 publications

References 42 publications

The use of bouts and frequencies in the evaluation of hand preferences for a coordinated bimanual task in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): An empirical study comparing two different indices of laterality.

The use of bouts and frequencies in the evaluation of hand preferences for a coordinated bimanual task in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): An empirical study comparing two different indices of laterality.

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) handedness: Variability across multiple measures of hand use.

Cortical dopaminergic innervation among humans, chimpanzees, and macaque monkeys: A comparative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About