Tests measuring brain laterality...

[Logic Prevails]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know this is probably a controversial topic, but I was wondering what tests are out there that measure brain laterality.

Another question...

I am relatively new to the ROCF, but wonder if it can be used to make statements about laterality (with the support of other qualitative/quantitative data of course).

For example:

If a person completed the copy phase of the ROCF in a very linear, sequential, piece-by piece or "chunking" fashion, would it be wrong to think (not that I would write it in a report) that he/she was using a "left-brain" method of processing the task (vs. a more "right-brain" or integrated method that would process the "Gestalt" of the design... i.e. drawing an outline first).

I'm curious as to what people think about this...

 

[50960]

Regardless of which tool you are you using it is dangerous to make blanket and predictive overstatements. Assessment is more about how all the tests, interview form a complete picture than it is about overinterpreting the results of each test out of context. Also, making statements about "laterality" is really meaningless for the most part unless you are testing for that specific purpose in some sort of research protocol. It also tells you nothing about how to answer the specific questions that prompted the referral. I realize that part of being a student is being made to focus on the trees and not the forest (per se), but be aware that in practice we are treating/testing/assessing so called "forests".

 

[Psyclops]

I also fail to see the clinical utility. I thought this was just a fad in the seventies saying you are left are right brained. Enlighten us B.

 

[Logic Prevails]

Firstly: PsiPsi - I agree with you so don't jump the gun here. I said "in addition to other qualitative/quatitative data."

Secondly: I don't know how much is worth even typing here because I know someone will say "we'll this is not entirely true... or this or that function is not entirely lateralized so you have no business saying that..."

Whatever.

I'm building much of my own thinking on Dan Siegel's integration of attachment theory and neurobiological theory, Mary Ainsworth's work, and psychodynamic perspectives.

Example: Suppose you're assessing a person who has has a seemingly avoidant/disorganized attachment with a primary caregiver and a not so glamorous first decade of life in terms of social oppourtunities. A going hypothesis in the neuro literature, and what has actually been found with many of these individuals through research, is that they have a difficult time with right hemisphere dominant tasks such as percieving nonverbal social cues, being able to reason abstractly, and using visual-spatial abilitites...etc. I'm not going to get into it in a little post here for people to pick apart. But for the sake of arguement... go with me here...

Let's say the individual you're assessing tends to be very logical in his/her thinking, very linear in the way they approach tasks, and very dominant in verbal abilities... (typically perceived as left hemisphere tasks)

Let's say this all fits with cognitive testing...

Could you not use a test like the Rey to test your working hypothesis?

I know... controversial. But the biological suff influences the cognitive and social... we just can't see it. But if our observations are consistent with what we know about how the neurobiolocial stuff works... can we not formulate and test hypotheses?

I'm not saying this has ANY clinical utility other than conceptualization for the clinician's sake.

 

[50960]

Localization is not what he was talking about Snow.

 

[Logic Prevails]

Thanks Jon, and yes, localization of function touches upon the same issues that I was getting at.

I guess I wanted to know if anyone thought our knowledge of brain organization and function could be used in conjunction with qualitative data and cognitive testing to formulate working hypotheses.

I would think that this would be reasonable.

 

[50960]

Excuse my ignorance Snow, but how does localizing a lesion etc have much to do with laterality? Sorta like like saying you can understand a bacterium in a pond by know what side of the pond it lives on...that may have something do with it in a gross fashion, but besides that?? I am willing to learn.
If laterality is important then what about dominance (IE. R/L or mixed)?

 

[PublicHealth]

Dominance is one reason to try and understand laterality

Tell Marcel Kinsbourne.

 

[PublicHealth]

seen him present before. . . he's done some really cool research.

I attended a couple of his lectures at the Boston VA. He came in with no materials, did not know the topic of his presentation until someone told him, and then proceeded to discuss the intricacies of cerebral dominance for THREE HOURS. He also invited us to his home to discuss issues in neuroscience and neuropsychology. Really interesting and down-to-earth guy. He has an MD from Oxford, with residency training in pediatric neurology.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

I'm trying to go back to the original question. I do see where you want to go with the RCFT and certainly with stroke patients the "approach" changes. There is a good deal of research on brain development that speaks to the more compartmentalized nature of the left hemisphere. Increasing research through Transcranial magnetic stim, fMRI (using a fairly complicated subtraction method) has been done looking at syllogisms where content conflicts with experience and lateralization..
If it is raining the streets will be streets will be dry
It is raining
Therefore the streets are...
The difference in injury patients is pretty convincing.

The problem is that outside of injury, the development of subtraction methods is pretty complicated. When you get into your functional imaging courses that will become more clear. In addition, using multiple subjects for something with pretty poor localization is tough. I have seen two cases of aphasia without amusica and each had lesions on different sides. You can't even really get most researchers to agree what the right hemisphere really contributes in terms of language processing. In pediatric studies, especially in cultures that are high context dependent like Japan, the right hemisphere development for non-verbal and prosodic cues is very different. However, over time those differences fade a bit.

I think your logic is fine, but the technology is a bit limited. When we see more MEG work, you may get more data. I doubt that correllations between RCFT Copy and soft signs (outside of perhaps NVLD) of right versus left hemisphere processing would emerge. I dk what Jon would say but your theory appears limited more by our current methods than anything else.