go to content

RICHNESS AGAINST FREEDOM: TWO HEMISPHERE FUNCTIONS AND THE PROBLEM OF CREATIVITY

Vadim S. Rotenberg

E-mail: vadir@post.tau.ac.il

European Journal For High Ability, 1993, 4: 11-19.

The difference between left and right hemisphere activity is proposed as defining two opposite modes for the organization of contextual connections between elements of information. According to the results of psychophysiological investigations, it is suggested that the "freedom" displayed by the isolated left hemisphere in manipulating information is due to the loss of multidimensional connections between objects. The ability to grasp such connections by the right hemisphere determines the richness of its mental activity and permits creativity. The peculiarity of the creative activity of schizophrenics is discussed and is considered to be a consequence of functional insufficiency of right hemisphere activity.

The functional asymmetry of the brain is one of the most basic problems of modern psychology, and despite the great number of publications some theoretical aspects of this problem remain unresolved. According to the results of the first investigations performed by Sperry, Gazzaniga and Bogen (1969) and Gazzaniga (1970) it was suggested that the right and left hemispheres process qualitatively different information. The function of the left hemisphere is the handling of verbal material, of signs and symbols which ensure verbal communication. The function of the right hemisphere is the handling of nonverbal material: the perception of images, melodies, intonations; space and body position orientation; field dependence; identification of complicated patterns (like human faces) and the performance of kinaesthetic functions.

These conclusions, made on the basis of functional analysis of the split brain, correspond to the results of clinical observations. Left hemisphere strokes cause speech disorders; however, the artistic abilities remain unaffected. Aphasia can be combined with the ability to sign. On the other hand, damage to the right hemisphere may cause an upset of the body scheme, spatial disorientation, deterioration of the

musical ear, as well as decline in creative abilities in a wide range of fields including painting, poetry, music, and even chess playing and nontrivial solving of mathematical problems. With the presentation of space-image perception tasks, subjects first turn their eyes left at the very onset - an indicator of the activation of the right hemisphere, while in the handling of simple arithmetic and phrase construction tasks the first involuntary eye movement is to the right - a sign of left hemisphere activity (Kinsbourne, 1972).

All these data seem to confirm the functional difference between hemispheres as a difference between processed information. However, other data refute this point of view as too simplified:

1. In split brain subjects, the right hemisphere is able to process verbal constructions if they are not too complicated (Ellis, Young & Andersen, 1988; Rastatter, Dell, McGuire & Loren, 1987). Moreover, it has been demonstrated that proverb interpretation is a function of the right hemisphere (Benton, 1968), as are sense of humor (Wapner, Hamby & Gardner, 1981) and processing of metaphors (Winner & Gardner, 1977).

2. EEC activity of the right hemisphere predominates during reading stories, while EEC activity of the left hemisphere predominates during reading textbooks in science (Ornstein, Herron, Johnstone & Swencionics, 1979); however, both involve verbal information.

3. The right ear (i.e. the left hemisphere) of healthy subjects dominates the perception of dichotically presented melodies if they differ only in rhythm (Gordon, 1978). However, all kinds of melodies belong to nonverbal information.

4. Split brain subjects are periodically able to report their dreams (Hoppe, 1977), although the dream is usually a visual experience.

5. The left hemisphere in some conditions may be more accurate in the identification of faces if they contain some definite outstanding feature, like a very long nose, etc. (Parking & Williamson, 1987).

6. Deaf and dumb language signs are nonverbal, but damaged by left hemisphere strokes (Bellugi, Poizner & Klima, 1983).

Another approach suggests temporally different organization of information in the right and left hemispheres (Gordon, 1978). According to this concept, the basic function of the left hemisphere is consecutive analysis of information, whether verbal or nonverbal, while the function of the right hemisphere is single stage processing of many elements of information as a single whole. This makes possible rapid single stage grasping of the essence of an object or phenomenon even before it is analyzed.

This concept is much more fitting, as it partly reflects real relationships between brain and reality. However, it was shown by Polich (1982) that the left hemisphere is also able to grasp a series of data simultaneously, and as rapidly as the right one, but only if the difference between the elements of the series are obvious and definite. If these differences are vague and indefinite, being dependent on many interrelations between elements, the advantage is on the right side.

According to the third point of view (Goldberg & Costa, 1981), the left hemisphere is responsible for the maintenance of ongoing behavior of a type with which the individual has familiarized him- or herself, while the right hemisphere's specialization includes the detection of novel and unexpected events. Although this conception is highly explanatory, it does not explain the advantage of the left hemisphere in identification of strange faces nor the advantage of the right hemisphere in identification of normal faces with which the subject is familiar (Parking & Williamson, 1987). Later, data will be presented which show that the left hemisphere is able to manipulate symbolic information, something which cannot be explained by this approach.

By taking into consideration all these contradictions I have developed the following speculative conception (Rotenberg, 1979): In its most general form the difference between the two strategies of thinking is reduced to opposite modes of organizing the contextual connection between elements of information. Left-hemisphere or formal logical thinking organizes any sign material (whether symbolic or iconic) in such a way as to create a strictly ordered and unambigously understood context. Its formation requires an active choice out of many potential connections between the multiform objects and phenomena of a few specific connections which do not create internal contradictions, are the most natural, and facilitate an ordered analysis. Such a strategy of thinking makes it possible to build a pragmatically convenient but simplified model of reality. It is based on probability forecasting and a search for concrete cause-and-effect relations, and it is precisely for this model that the vector of time orientation exists.

In contrast, the function of right-hemispheric or image thinking is simultaneous capture of an infinite number of connections, and the formation due to this of an integrated but ambiguous context. In such a context, the whole is not determined by its components, since all specific features of the whole are determined only by interconnections between the parts. On the contrary, any concrete element of such a context bears the stamp of the whole. A new experience is incorporated into this holistic picture of the world. Individual facets of images interact with each other on many semantic planes simultaneously. Examples of such contextual connections are the connections between images in dreams or in works of art. The advantages of this strategy of thinking manifest themselves only when the information itself is complex, internally contradictory and basically irreducible to an unambiguous context (Rotenberg, 1982, 1985).

According to the results of our investigations (Rotenberg & Arshavsky, 1991) it is the organization of the monosemantic left hemispheric context which requires the additional nonspecific activation of the brain via the reticular formation. The organization of the polysemantic context does not require additional activation of the brain. The flexibility of image thinking makes this mode of thinking very important in task solutions, and especially in the resolution of contradictions.

This approach is capable of explaining all data which contradict the verbal/ nonverbal paradigm. According to this conception, simultaneous capture is an important feature of the right hemisphere style of thinking, but only if the information by itself is complicated and contain inner contradictions which can not be regulated logically. In addition, this conception replaces the dichotomy of familiar vs. novel behavior in task solutions by the dichotomy of monosemantic (explicable) vs. polysemantic (inexplicable) context processing. Here, relations are the focus of attention.

By taking into consideration all the abovementioned assumptions, it is possible to suggest that the polysemantic context produced and processed by the right hemisphere provides an opportunity for an extremely free manipulation of information, without any restrictions, and can help to establish an unlimited number of new connections between objects and phenomena. The left hemispheric organization of the monosemantic context seems to be overcontrolled by formal logical rules. According to this suggestion, the monosemantic context is restricted and relatively simple.

However, mental activity after electrical shock presented separately to the left and right hemispheres of depressed patients does not confirm this predictiction (Deglin, 1988). In this study subjects had to resolve the following syllogism: All monkies can climb trees. The raccoon is a monkey. Can raccoons climb trees or not? Patients with suppressed functions of the left hemisphere caused by shock (with the functions of the right hemisphere relatively intact) concluded that this does not make sense, as do healthy subjects. However, subjects with suppressed function of the right hemisphere and relatively intact function of the left hemisphere give a positive answer, despite the syllogism's absurd content. (Of course, the subjects were given the task only after restoration of the ability to communicate, but before total restoration of the electrical activity of the suppressed hemisphere.)

It seems on the face of it that subjects with the left hemisphere intact were more free in their manipulation of information. For instance, it was easier for them to accept unnatural relations between objects. Perhaps the subject could imagine a raccoon climbing on trees? However, this was not the case. When the subjects were asked whether they could really imagine this picture they denied this possibility. But when they turned back to the syllogism they again made the same mistake, and when pressed by the investigators to explain the reason for their decision they usually gave an answer like: In the text it was emphasized that the raccoon is a monkey and that every monkey can climb trees. Consequently raccoons can also do it. Deglin (1988) stressed in his report that the subjects were free from their own previous experience and knowledge in the process of decision making. This means that they were free from the real relations which exist in the objective world. Moreover, they were even free from their own ability to imagine new relationships, and their conclusions were based only on the formal logical conditions presented in the task. Thus, the left hemisphere is able to construct something senseless and absurd. However, from this point of view, the ability of the right hemisphere to play with information seems to be more restricted, quite the opposite of the prediction (Rotenberg, 1982a).

The abovementioned data also produced another question: Why did the left hemisphere, which is argued to be the neurophysiological basis of consciousness (Eccles, 1973), make no effort to evaluate the senseless concept? Why is the isolated left hemisphere so free from taking account of the contradictions between the context and reality, and not sensitive to these contradictions? This seems to be especially strange when the fact is taken into consideration that the left hemisphere is usually unable to resolve problems caused by inner contradictions, which means that such contradictions are perceived by the left hemisphere as unavoidable obstacles. For instance, waking consciousness based predominantly on left hemisphere activity is unable to overcome inner motivational conflicts. At the same time, the right hemisphere is able to overcome these obstacles, as they occur in daydreams and dreams, and for this reason the right hemisphere plays an important role in psychological defense mechanisms (Rotenberg, 1982a).

Today it is possible to give only a speculative answer to these questions. It is possible to suggest that the freedom displayed by the left hemisphere in Deglin's (1988) experiment is a freedom from the polysemantic connections between objects and phenomena, from the whole real natural world. Due to this peculiar freedom it is possible to take every object out of its complicated connections and put it into a simplified context. In this context the object is bound to other objects by artificial connections. The contradictions are not resolved - they are ignored, and it is thus possible that due to the suppression of the right hemisphere the subject is in touch with artificial reality.

Of course, the ability of the left hemisphere to manipulate artificial reality is extremely important for analytical activity and for modeling activity. But, no doubt, the same ability can became the source of mistakes and unavoidable contradictions based on the supposition that in every complicated situation, including emotional relationships between people, there is only one truth which of necessity excludes any other truth. This position is a source of internal conflict if the right hemisphere is not suppressed, because the artificial picture of the world created by the left hemisphere is in contradiction to the real picture grasped by the right hemisphere. This may explain the improvement of mood after right hemisphere suppression in patients.

Since the freedom of the left hemisphere in its manipulation of information is really a freedom from polysemantic multidimensional context, this suggests that this manipulation is itself restricted by the artificial rules which control it and displace the natural connections. Only the multidimensional context makes every object rich, holistic and inexhaustable. The object is part of the holistic world. The manipulation of this object is not free in the same sense as Anthey was not free from the Earth which restored his power. Loss of the artificial freedom of manipulation is the price paid for the real richness.

From this point of view it is possible to explain the difference between metaphors produced by the left and right hemispheres. Every symbol in the polysemantic context becomes richer and more bound at the same time. Such symbols lose their pure symbolic quality and acquire features of images. The freedom of the right hemisphere way of thinking is a freedom in the use of all possible connections, but not a freedom from these connections. The right hemisphere demonstrates, for instance, a fascinating freedom in manipulation of images in dreams (Rotenberg, 1985). Dream content and images which appear in dreams may be very strange and even incredible to the waking consciousness. Nevertheless, this freedom is not infinite. It is not the freedom of a beggar, who has nothing to lose and therefore is ready for everything - on the contrary, it is a freedom of the rich, and is based on real opportunities and capacities. Left hemisphere ability is also restricted by artificial formal rules. From my point of view, the difference is that the left hemisphere is unrestricted in acceptance and creation of such rules, while the right hemisphere is restricted by natural conditions and relations. The latter, however, can be fascinating and rich. Various combinations of images performed by the right hemisphere are subordinated to reality.

As was mentioned above, processing of metaphors and sense of humour are functions of the right hemisphere. It is possible to explain this by using the present theoretical paradigm. The left hemisphere way of thinking is unable to understand paradoxes. It considers paradoxes to be either nonsense or truth, because this way of thinking has no capacity to combine contradictory ideas in a polysemantic context. The left hemisphere is also unable to use metaphors which reflect real but covert connections between objects. Such metaphors create the basis for real art and produce an effect of surprised recognition, when the subject immediately recognizes the truth beyond the metaphor and the latter becomes so convincing that people are surprised that they had never found it themselves. Surprised recognition seems to be the best validation of the existence of creativity in art as well as in science, but this phenomenon, from my point of view, is caused only by metaphors produced by the right hemisphere.

It seems reasonable to analyze the artistic production of schizophrenic patients from this point of view. Images, associations and metaphors produced by patients may be extremely original and impressive. Schizophrenic patients seem to be almost totally unrestricted and free in their manipulation of symbols, the latter being disconnected and deprived of natural polysemantic connections. This seems to be typical of creativity determined by right hemisphere insufficiency. This conclusion is in agreement with my previous suggestion (Rotenberg, 1982b) and with numerous recent data on right hemisphere dysfunction in schizophrenic patients (see Cutting, 1992).

According to my clinical experience, viewers and readers who are often impressed by unusual images feel this kind of art to be unnatural, and tend not to be involved emotionally with such productions. (The same sometimes happens with modern art, which seems to be a product of left hemisphere activity.) Viewers feel themselves emotionally separated from the product, which is not convincing enough and is unable to produce surprised recognition. This seems to be the main difference between the creativity of healthy talented persons and the creativity of the schizophrenic patient. However, even if schizophrenic patients are characterized by right hemisphere functional insufficiency, by inability to produce polysemantic context, this does not mean that they are characterized by high left hemisphere ability. It is a typical mistake in modern science - to discuss brain hemisphere functions in terms of competition, and to speculate that the decrease of functional ability of one hemisphere automatically produces the functional predominance of the other. In reality, both hemispheres in a normal state are not in a competitive but in a complementary relationship, and the successful development of right hemisphere image flunking in healthy creative subjects does not suppress their ability to search, if necessary, for cause and effect relations, but rather produces a rich basis for such search. Polysemantic context ultimately enlarges the ability to grasp and as a result also explain reality with all it contradictions, and helps to include many new aspects in the logical pictures of reality produced by the left hemisphere.

In schizophrenia these patients' decreased ability to produce a polysemantic context, inability to form a holistic picture from numerous disconnected events (Cutting, 1985), is combined with impaired ability to make a probability forecast. Objective events which have a very low probability of occurring are perceived subjectively as being as likely as events with a very high probability of occurrence. As a result, the Sharpantye illusion disappears in schizophrenic patients (Feigenberg, 1972). Probability forecasting is based on the ability to organize current information and previous experience according to definite logical rules, and it belongs to the left hemisphere functions (Meerson, 1986). The right hemisphere does not use probability forecasts; it is very important for creativity because it helps to focus attention on the rare and occasional events which can be used to produce a holistic polysemantic context.

It is possible to speculate about the difference between healthy creative persons and schizophrenic patients according to their probability forecasts. In creators, on the one hand, there is a functional predominance of the highly developed right hemisphere (which determines the ability to overcome restrictions caused by probability forecasts); the functional insufficiency of the left hemisphere (probably caused by its occupation with positive symptoms), on the other hand, makes schizophrenics unable to form probability forecasts. Of course, the ability to overcome is not the same as inability to form. For schizophrenic patients, oriented toward their inner world, highly probable events are emotionally reinforced as much as low probability events. In creative persons, low probability events have the same relatively high emotional reinforcement as highly probable events. Both groups are characterized by the reduction of the normal probability forecast, brought about by different mechanisms and with different outcomes: schizophrenics are hyposensitive to most events not related to their inner world, while creative persons are hypersensitive to the rare as well as to frequent events. Due to the absence of probability forecasts, schizophrenics are sometimes able to produce strange and unexpected associations which can imitate creative products, but these products do not produce the phenomenon of surprized recognition.

Many of these suggestions are highly speculative. However, they seem to avoid contradictions and to present a holistic approach to the problem, which is still not resolved.

REFERENCES

Bellugi, O., Poizner, H. & Klima, E.S. (1983). Brain organization for languages: Clues from sign aphasia. Human Neurobiology, 2, 155-170.

Benton, A.L. (1968). Differential behavioural effects of frontal lobe disease. Neuro-phsychologia, 6, 53-60.

Cutting, J. (1985). The psychology of schizophrenia. Edinburgh: Churchill Living-stone.

Cutting, J. (1992). The role of right hemisphere dysfunction in psychiatric disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 583-588.

Deglin, V.L. (October 1988). Brain hemisphere function in syllogism solution. Paper presented to the Conference of the Council of Problems of Consciousness, USSR Academy of Science, Batumi.

Eccles, J.C. (1973). Brain, speech and consciousness. Die Naturwissenschaften, 4, 167-176.

Ellis, A.W., Young, A.W. & Andersen, C. (1988). Modes of word recognition in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language, 35, 254-277.

Feigenberg, I.M. (1972). Funktionelle Verbindungen der sensorischen Systeme in Norm und Pathologie. Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag.

Gazzaniga, M.S. (1970). The bisected brain. New York: Appleton.

Goldberg, E. & Costa, L.D. (1981). Hemisphere differences in the acquisition and use of descriptive systems. Brain and Language, 14, 144-173.

Gordon, H. (1978). Left hemisphere dominance for rhythmic elements in dichotomically presented melodies. Cortex, 14, 58-70.

Hoppe, K.D. (1977). Split brain and psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytical Quarterly, XLVI, 220-242.

Kinsbourne, M. (1972). Eye and head turning indicates cerebral lateralization. Science, 176, 539-541.

Meerson, Y.A. (1986). Left and right brain hemispheres in the process of estimation of probability. Fiziologia Cheloveka, 12, 723-731.

Ornstein, R., Herron, J., Johnstone, J. & Swencionis, C. (1979). Differential right hemisphere involvement in two reading tasks. Psychophysiology, 16, 398-401.

Parkin, A.J. & Williamson, P. (1987). Cerebral lateralization at different stages of facial processing. Cortex, 23, 99-110.

Polich, J.M. (1982). Hemispheric differences for visual search: Serial vs. parallel processing revisited. Neuropsychologia, 20, 297-307.

Rastatter, M., Dell, C.W., McGuire, R.A. & Loren C. (1987). Vocal reaction times to unilaterally presented concrete and abstract words: Toward a theory of differential right hemispheric semantic processing. Cortex, 23, 135-148.

Rotenberg, V.S. (1979). Word and image: The problem of context. Dynamic Psychiatry, 59, 494-498.

Rotenberg, V.S. (1982a). Funktionelle Dichotomie der Gehirnhemispharen und die Bedeutung der Suchaktivitat fur physiologische und psychologische Prozesse. In G. Ammon (Ed.), Handbuch der dynamischen Psychiatrie, Bd.2, (pp. 276-336).

Rotenberg, V.S. (1982b). Schizophrenic im Lichte des Konzepts der Suchaktivita't: Psychophysiologische Aspekte. Dynamische Psychiatric, 72/73, 10-20.

Rotenberg, V.S. (1985). Sleep dreams: Cerebral dominance and creation. Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 20, 53-58.

Rotenberg, V.S. & Arshavsky, V.V. (1991). The psychophysiology of the brain hemisphere asymmetry: The "entropy" of the right hemisphere activity. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 26, 183-188.

Sperry, R., Gazzaniga, M. & Bogen, I, (1969). Interhemispheric relationships: the neocortical comissures, syndromes of hemisphere disconnection. Handbook of clinical neurology, (pp. 273-290). Amsterdam.

Wapner, W., Hamby, S. & Gardner, H. (1981). The role of the right hemisphere in the apprehension of complex linguistic material. Brain and Language, 14, 15-33.

Winner, E. & Gardner, H. (1977). The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain, 100, 717-729.