Charlton S, Bakan P, Moretti M
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada.
Int J Neurosci. 1989 Sep;48(1-2):1-18. doi: 10.3109/00207458909002148.
It has been suggested that conjugate lateral eye movements (CLEM) are related to cerebral lateralization. Two types of research have developed: studies examining individual differences (hemisphericity) and studies examining the type of questions used to elicit eye movements (hemispheric specialization). In a 1978 review, Ehrlichman and Weinberger questioned the notion that CLEM is related to cerebral lateralization, particularly with regard to individual differences. However, since their review, a substantial number of studies have been published which are pertinent to the validity of CLEM. The following paper reviewed the validity of CLEM through three avenues, neurophysiological evidence, relationships with other measures of laterality and relation to spatial and verbal stimuli. Overall, it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the CLEM model. Converging evidence from studies on EEG, electrical stimulation, ablation, brain damage, sodium amytal testing, blood flow, positron emission tomography, dichotic listening, and visual half fields was found to be, for the most part, supportive. The results for verbal and spatial task performance were mixed. Studies examining verbal abilities or a verbal to spatial comparison were generally supportive. The findings for spatial abilities alone were more equivocal. Evidence on question-type was found to be weak but positive, with about half the studies showing the predicted asymmetry and the other half reporting nonsignificant results. The implications of an interaction between hemisphericity or characteristic arousal and hemispheric specialization were also discussed.
有人提出共轭性侧眼运动(CLEM)与大脑的侧化有关。已开展了两类研究:一类研究考察个体差异(半球性),另一类研究考察用于引发眼动的问题类型(半球特化)。在1978年的一篇综述中,埃利希曼和温伯格对CLEM与大脑侧化有关这一观点提出了质疑,尤其是关于个体差异方面。然而,自他们的综述发表以来,已经发表了大量与CLEM的有效性相关的研究。以下论文通过三条途径对CLEM的有效性进行了综述,即神经生理学证据、与其他侧化测量方法的关系以及与空间和言语刺激的关系。总体而言,得出的结论是有足够的证据支持CLEM模型。发现来自脑电图、电刺激、切除、脑损伤、硫喷妥钠测试、血流、正电子发射断层扫描、双耳分听和视觉半视野研究的汇聚证据在很大程度上是支持性的。言语和空间任务表现的结果参差不齐。考察言语能力或言语与空间比较的研究总体上是支持性的。仅关于空间能力的研究结果则更具争议性。关于问题类型的证据虽薄弱但呈阳性,约一半的研究显示出预期的不对称性,另一半报告无显著结果。还讨论了半球性或特征性唤醒与半球特化之间相互作用的影响。