Tracking the Functional Development of the Corpus Callosum in Children Using Behavioral and Evoked Potential Interhemispheric Transfer Times

Abstract

Visual functions requiring interhemispheric transfer exhibit a long developmental trajectory up to age 12, which might be constrained by corpus callosum maturation. Here, we use electrophysiological and behavioral crossed-uncrossed differences (CUDs) in a visual Poffenberger paradigm to estimate the interhemispheric transfer time (IHTT)-a measure of corpus callosum maturation-in 7-year-old children and adults. Adults' electrophysiological CUDs were faster than 7-year-olds'. Behavioral CUDs did not differ and proved to be unreliable in a 6-month follow-up test. These findings suggest that the corpus callosum still undergoes development at the age of 7 that can only reliably be traced with neuroscientific methods.

Interhemispheric transfer time and concussion in adolescents: A longitudinal study using response time and event-related potential measures

“…They did note significantly greater indirect minus direct difference response times in a subset of participants with concussion compared to the control group (Womack et al, 2017). Furthermore, indirect minus direct difference response times did not significantly correlate with electrophysiological IHTT in our data as well as in data from other studies, indicating that behavioral and electrophysiological IHTT may not reflect identical neural phenomena (Braun, 1992;Westerhausen et al, 2006;Friedrich et al, 2017;Meissner et al, 2017). A study by Hammond-Tooke et al (2010) indicated that response time deficits in individuals with concussion may be attributed to damage to intrahemispheric motor networks and not damage to the corpus callosum.…”

“…Womack et al (2017) showed greater difference between direct and indirect pathway response times to be correlated with decreased integrity of the posterior corpus callosum, indexed by lower mean diffusivity, following concussion in adults. Although these results are supportive of the potential clinical utility of IHTT, individual motor variability is a potential confound when using this indirect, behavioral measurement of IHTT (Moes et al, 2007;Meissner et al, 2017).…”

“…The lack of significant differences in this manipulation check call into question the utility of this surrogate measure of IHTT. Recent studies using indirect minus direct difference response times to infer IHTT generally have not reported response time manipulation checks to validate IHTT 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1161156 measurement (Mathias et al, 2004;Meissner et al, 2017;Womack et al, 2017). Westerhausen et al (2006) examined behavioral IHTT in healthy, adult males.…”

“…1 https://osf.io/aqf9v/?view_only=0624935781604da1adf5e9099baf121c To measure IHTT response times, we calculated the differences between averaged indirect values (e.g., stimulus in the right visual field and response with the left hand) and averaged direct values (e.g., stimulus in the right visual field and response with the right hand). This produced indirect minus direct difference response time values for each participant (Meissner et al, 2017;Womack et al, 2017).…”

From Hemispheric Asymmetry through Sensorimotor Experiences to Cognitive Outcomes in Children with Cerebral Palsy

“…Note that the acquisition of new motor skills typically requires one to learn finely timed, ordered sequences of actions and the bimanual coordination of parallel movements, both requiring effective interhemispheric transfer via the CC [141,142,[144][145][146][147][148]. Thus, an underdeveloped CC in children with CP might interfere with their execution of finely timed sequences of actions, bimanual performance, and motor learning in general [139,141,[149][150][151][152].…”