Jeeves M A
Psychological Laboratory, University of St Andrews, Fife, Scotland, U.K.
Neuropsychologia. 1991;29(1):19-34. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(91)90091-l.
Stereoperception in two acallosal patients and two partial callosotomy patients was compared with that of three normal subjects. All three patients with the splenium missing, whether due to agenesis or surgical intervention, showed midline deficits and broadly similar profiles; namely, they made few uncrossed midline responses. The patient with partial callosal section but with the splenium almost totally spared performed better at the midline than in the periphery. All degrees of disconnection produced some overall loss of performance, confirming the results of Hamilton and Vermeire (In Two Hemispheres--One Brain, F. Lepore, M. Pitto and H. H. Jasper (Editors), pp. 315-333. Alan R. Liss Inc., New York, 1986) and Hamilton et al. (Suppl. Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. 28, 294, 1987). The results are discussed in the context of earlier reports of human and animal studies of stereoperception. Bearing in mind reports of structural alterations in layer III of the striate cortex in acallosals (Shoumjra, K. et al. Brain Res. 93, 241-252, 1975. Also, Akert, K. et al. Trans. Am. Neurol. Assoc. 79, 151-153, 1954), it is speculated that the specific difficulties encountered by them in handling uncrossed disparities may be due to a marked reduction or absence of far neurones in acallosal brains (Poggio, G. F. and Poggio, T. Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 7, 379-412, 1984). The likely importance of the anterior commissure in the efficient integration of crossed disparity (near neurones) (Cowey, A. In Brain Mechanisms and Spatial Vision, D. Ingle (Editor), NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1985) is seen as a possible explanation of the acallosals relative success in making crossed disparity judgements. The variability of performance in normals documented by Hamilton and Vermeire (In Two Hemispheres--One Brain, F. Lepore, M. Pitto and H. H. Jasper (Editors), pp. 315-333. Alan R. Liss Inc., New York, 1986) and Hamilton et al. (Suppl. Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. 28, 294, 1987) is, not surprisingly, even more marked amongst acallosals.
对两名胼胝体缺失患者和两名部分胼胝体切开术患者的立体感知能力与三名正常受试者进行了比较。所有三名胼胝体压部缺失的患者,无论病因是发育不全还是手术干预,均表现出中线缺陷且大致相似的特征;也就是说,他们几乎没有非交叉中线反应。部分胼胝体切开但胼胝体压部几乎完全保留的患者在中线处的表现优于周边。所有程度的神经连接中断都会导致整体表现有所下降,这证实了汉密尔顿和韦尔米尔(《在两个半球——一个大脑》,F. 勒波雷、M. 皮托和H. H. 贾斯珀(编辑),第315 - 333页。艾伦·R. 利斯公司,纽约,1986年)以及汉密尔顿等人(《眼科与视觉科学研究增刊》28卷,第294页,1987年)的研究结果。本文在早期关于人类和动物立体感知研究报告的背景下对这些结果进行了讨论。鉴于有报告称胼胝体缺失者纹状皮层III层存在结构改变(舒姆伊拉,K. 等人,《脑研究》93卷,第241 - 252页,1975年。此外,阿克特,K. 等人,《美国神经学协会会刊》79卷,第151 - 153页,1954年),据推测他们在处理非交叉视差时遇到的特定困难可能是由于胼胝体缺失者大脑中远神经元显著减少或缺失所致(波焦,G. F. 和波焦,T.,《神经科学年度评论》7卷,第379 - 412页,1984年)。前连合在交叉视差(近神经元)有效整合中的可能重要性(考伊,A.,《脑机制与空间视觉》,D. 英格尔(编辑),北约高级研究学会系列,马丁努斯·尼霍夫出版社,海牙,1985年)被视为胼胝体缺失者在进行交叉视差判断时相对成功的一种可能解释。汉密尔顿和韦尔米尔(《在两个半球——一个大脑》,F. 勒波雷、M. 皮托和H. H. 贾斯珀(编辑),第315 - 333页。艾伦·R. 利斯公司,纽约,1986年)以及汉密尔顿等人(《眼科与视觉科学研究增刊》28卷,第294页,1987年)记录的正常受试者表现的变异性,在胼胝体缺失者中更为明显,这并不奇怪。