Neuromyth: Right Brain vs. Left Brain Myth
Task description
Individuals are either 'left brain' thinkers or 'right brain' thinkers: Using Neuroscience to Dispel this Popular Myth
In this essay you will outline and critically review neuropsychological literature that dispels the ‘neuromyth’ that certain ways of thinking (e.g. logic, creativity) demonstrate individual left/right brain dominance.
What you need to do
You are tasked to write a critically considered essay dispelling the popular neuromyth that creative, emotional individuals are right brain dominant and that logical, analytical thinkers are left brain dominant. No doubt you have heard many people across multiple settings express this idea, and perhaps you’ve also noticed that certain products have been developed that purport to help individuals determine their hemispheric dominance and also provide ways for them to “strengthen their weak side”. This myth, while having been refuted by countless studies, continues to be perpetuated and is even incorporated into the development of workplace and educational resources.
In this essay, we want you to concentrate on providing an objective, critical, and scientific explanation for why this idea is inaccurate. While it is important to discuss the neuropsychological research and evidence for hemispheric dominance of certain mental functions (i.e., the origins of the myth), the major emphasis of your essay should be on the neuropsychological evidence that refutes the notion that certain individual characteristics imply that an individual is ‘left brained’ or ‘right brained’. In this regard, please aim to incorporate recent articles to substantiate your conclusions because there is always more research being done that provides an ongoing appreciation of the nuances of brain function, across a range of different cognitive abilities. Please note that it is critical that the literature you provide discusses biological/structural mechanisms. In your essay you will also need to make sure that you are evaluating the research, i.e., including details related to methodology, sample sizes (and characteristics), and the researchers’ conclusions. Take your time to understand the research articles thoroughly before you evaluate them and include them in your essay. Review articles are helpful, and excellent starting sources, but they should not provide the bulk of your support. Please do not discuss review articles or meta-analyses as if they are single studies.
We expect a minimum of 10 peer-reviewed relevant references, but you will likely need more to make sure you are synthesising ideas properly from different research contributions. It is important that the essay reflects your understanding of brain anatomy and function and neuropsychological research methods, and that you present this understanding in a logical and coherent fashion. Over-reliance on undergraduate textbooks, the popular press and unrefereed Web sites will result in a reduced grade.
Note: You are not permitted to use generative artificial intelligence (AI; e.g., ChatGPT) tools in this essay. Use of AI in this essay constitutes student misconduct and is considered a breach of academic integrity. The reasons for this are that the essay requires you to demonstrate your own skills and competencies, and is designed to challenge you and help you to develop essential skills for your future career.
The assignment should be in APA style (7th ed) and contain a title page, abstract, introduction, body, conclusion, and reference list. The 2,000-word limit includes all sections except the title page and references section. In-text citations within the main text count toward the word limit. Please include your word count on the title page.
Please note that in your assignment, everything needs to be described in your own words. Do not copy anything word-for-word from this document or any other sources (e.g., articles or tutorial slides). You need to demonstrate your own understanding and effective communication skills. This means communicating your own insights and paraphrasing relevant details about the study rather than copying from the provided resources. When describing the literature, aim to summarise and synthesise (in your own words), and cite the relevant sources.
Make sure you have covered all relevant components of an essay in psychology. Use the marking criteria to help you with this.
General
· Please ensure that you follow APA style, 7th edition.
· The following resources can be used as a guide:
o Shakespeare-Finch, J. (2020). A Guide to Formatting in Psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
o American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
· You can find some online resources here: https://apastyle(dot)apa(dot)org/Links to an external site., including sample papers: https://apastyle(dot)apa(dot)org/style-grammarguidelines/paper-format/sample- papers.
· Use double spacing throughout the paper with no extra spaces between paragraphs, sections, or references. Everything should be written out in full sentences, no bullet points.
Structure
Title Page
· Create a title that summarises the main idea of the paper, including the topic and thesis statement. Follow the APA student title page guidelines (https://apastyle(dot)apa(dot)org/style-grammar- guidelines/paper-format/samplepapers).
· Please do not use a cover page template that includes colour, large font, or other design elements that are not part of APA style.
· Include the word count.
Abstract
· This is a short summary of the essay topic, main overall points of the literature included, limitations of literature, and future directions/conclusions. It should include information about your paper such that a reader can identify if they want to read the rest of your paper by reading the abstract. This is usually written last.
Introduction
· Repeat the title of the paper for the heading in this section rather than using “Introduction”.
· Frame the key topic and why it is important to understand both the origins of and the evidence against this claim.
· Introduce important key words and define them
· Provide a statement at the end of the introduction that highlights the focus/scope of the essay. This should be quite directive and definitive, e.g. “The literature reviewed in this essay demonstrates that…..”
Body
· Each section of the body should address something new and interesting. For instance, you might like to have each section addressing a different cognitive ability. Alternatively, you could focus your entire essay on the literature related to one cognitive ability, and each paragraph could address different aspects of this ability, or different research methods. There’s no right or wrong way to do this; it’s all about the relevance of the literature you’ve chosen and your ability to communicate it effectively.
· You might like to use subheadings to make the flow of your ideas clearer – just keep in mind that they will be included the word count.
· Each paragraph should include:
o A topic sentence– what is the focus of this paragraph?
o Support for the topic of the paragraph, i.e. review the available literature
o A concluding sentence: Drawing the conclusions from the literature reviewed together, what does this tell us about lateralisation/dominance/cognitive abilities – i.e. link the specific topic of this paragraph back to the overall topic of the essay
· Also include a discussion of what did the studies do well/not so well (limitations) linking to what is yet to be investigated. This may be woven throughout, or may be its own section towards the end.
Conclusion
· Summarise what you have discussed.
· Concluding statement – should be related to your thesis statement. i.e. restate the thesis statement and discuss why the literature supports it.
· Finish on unanswered questions and future directions of the research.
References
· Aim to include peer-reviewed meta-analyses 13 articles
Critical Review
Student Full Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Full Title
Instructor Full Name
Due Date
Abstract
The right brain vs. left brain topic is a popular brain myth that theorizes that everyone has a dominant brain hemisphere that determined their personality and ability. The neuromyth emerged in the 1970s and continues to be implemented in many education institutions. However, the concept is derived from an erroneous understanding of brain functioning and cannot be a plausible concept in schools and universities. This essay will conduct a critical review of current literature on brain neurology, the origins of and the evidence against the right brain vs. left brain topic. The essay will argue against the neuromyth by looking for literature that disproves the “right brain vs. left brain” myth. It will begin by tracing the history of brain lateralization and hemisphere dominance and then explore how the concepts of brain neurology have changed across time. It will focus on the brain-split experiments of the 1960s to 1970s to uncover the origins of the neuromyth as well as the reasons why it is not a feasible concept.
Critical Review
According to the right brain vs. left brain myth, people with a dominant left hemisphere of the brain tend to be rational, logical, and structured in their thinking while those with a dominant right hemisphere of the brain tend to be emotional, fluid, and spontaneous in their thinking. The myth ascribes specific personalities and problem-solving skills to each side of the brain hemisphere: the left brain is thought to be good with math and language while the right brain is believed to be good with creative or artistic projects. This right brain vs. left brain myth originated from the groundbreaking ‘split-brain’ research by Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga that focused on determining what facets of the human mind are processed in which hemisphere of the brain. The pioneering work resulted in Sperry winning the 1981 Nobel Prize and Gazzaniga going on to become the founder of cognitive neuroscience. However, it also created the now popular right brain vs. left brain neuromyth. It is important to understand both the origins of and the evidence against this claim because of the implications it has on education practices.
The neuromyth supported related teaching styles that erroneously attributed certain information processing characteristics and problem-solving skills to either of the two brain hemispheres. Although “brain-based learning” continues to be practiced in schools and colleges, helping educators realize that the concept is founded on a myth may prevent further waste of educational money, time, and effort on inappropriate learning strategies. The key words in this critical review are neuromyths, neuroscience, processing, and hemispheric dominance. Neuromyths are misconceptions resulting from misreading brain research findings to support the use of certain teaching styles in educational contexts. Neuroscience is a branch of science that deals with investigating and understanding the development, structure, and function of the brain and nervous system. Processing refers to the method by which the brain transforms input from sensory organs into electrochemical signals that are interpreted by the brain. Hemispheric dominance refers to the lateralization of brain function where either side of the brain performs some functions over others. The literature reviewed in this essay demonstrates that the “right brain vs. left brain” myth is founded on certain scientific truths but these facts have been misinterpreted to give an incorrect understanding of how the brain works. The right brain vs. left brain neuromyth is false because it misrepresents scientific findings on how the brain hemispheres work.
Before the 1960s and 1970s study by Sperry and Gazzaniga, all investigations on hemispheric dominance and brain laterization were based on post-mortem investigations of patients with severe brain disorders. There was still not definite evidence to prove brain lateralization and critics argued against the idea of hemispheric dominance until the brain-split study by Sperry and Gazzaniga. Invasive split-brain surgeries were the only way to treat epilepsy in the 1960s (Rosen, 2018). Neurosurgeons had already established that splitting the brain or successfully prevented the spread of seizures from one side of the brain to the other in severely epileptic patients. Around this time when cutting off all communications between the two halves of the brain was the only feasible treatment of epilepsy, Sperry and Gazzaniga began studying the processing functions of each brain hemisphere. The two researchers were determined to identify the processing aspects of each half of the brain when they were severed from each other.
The experiment by Sperry and Gazzaniga involved querying each half of the brain in isolation. For instance, the two researchers would ask patients who had undergone commissurotomy to use their hand independently and identify objects that were not within view. de Haan et al. (2020) provides the methodology and consequences of cutting the corpus callosum. The two researchers found that patients who had undergone the split-brain procedure could not process information using the right brain hemisphere. When asked what object they saw with their right hemisphere, the patients would give a negative answer since the left hemisphere, responsible for speech, did not have access to the information the right hemisphere was tasked with processing. Furthermore, when asked to reach for an object or perform an action in the right hemisphere, their left hand would instinctively reach out or perform the action. The patients could not explain the instinctive tendency by the left hand to respond to commands given to the right hemisphere.
Sperry and Gazzaniga determined that the halves of the brain engaged in subliminal messaging and that the left hemisphere was responsible for interpreting speech. For instance, the patients could not explain why the left hemisphere of their brain was processing information that was presented to their right hemisphere. The two researchers referred to this form of interpretation or tendency by one hemisphere of the brain to perform an action without sufficient information to guide the action as confabulation. Confabulation denotes the tendency by either side of the brain to recite imaginary events in order to compensate for memory or knowledge gaps. Sperry’s research program on split brains provided the first definite proof of brain lateralization in various cognitive processes (Draaisma, 2015). When one side of the brain does not have access to the information being processed by the other half of the brain, it resorts to reciting imaginary events to explain its actions.
The experimental studies by Sperry and Gazzaniga provided definite proof of hemispheric specialization not only in terms of language processing but also in relation to pattern identification. Nielsen et al. (2013) investigated the existence of phenotypic variations in the robustness of right-dominant or left-dominant networks using data scans of 1011 individuals between 7 and 29 years old. The study measured the functional lateralization of each participant for each pair of regions enclosing the gray matter at 5-mm resolution. Connections sharing a node and entailing left- or right-lateralized hubs showed positive correlation for all research subjects. The study determined that brain lateralization links are a local property and that there is no conclusive evidence of left-brain dominance or right-brain dominance across individuals. Peng et al. (2022) examined the lateralization properties involved in visual-spatial cognitive processes among table tennis athletes with long-term training and improved neural processing capacities. The study compared the spatial cognition capacities of table tennis players with that of regular college students. A total of 48 subjects were requested to complete spatial cognitive tasks and their results were recorded and analyzed. The study determined a right-hemisphere advantage among players with long-term training compared to regular college students implying a right hemisphere dominance in spatial processing-related tasks.
The brain connectome is intimately connected across both hemispheres and both h...