Chapter 1: A New Way of Looking At What Your Brain Says About You
1. R. F. Thompson, The Brain: A Neuroscience Primer, 2nd ed. (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1993).
2. Adapted from F. A. Wilson, S. P. Scalaidhe, and P. S. Goldman-Rakic, “Dissociation of Object and Spatial Processing Domains in Primate Pre-Frontal Cortex,” Science 260 (June 1993): 1955–58.
Chapter 2: Roots of the Theory
1. See Swedenborg’s two-volume The Economy of the Animal Kingdom, 1740–1741 (1918).
2. W. Penfield and H. Jasper, Epilepsy and the Functional Anatomy of the Human Brain (Boston: Little, Brown, 1951).
Chapter 3: The Duplex Brain
1. Because vision and audition are the primary senses for us humans, we focus on them here; however, we note that comparable structures exist for the other senses.
2. For a good overview of the functions of this area, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca’s_area.
3. However, this separation is not absolute; under some circumstances, shape can be specified by location (think, for example, of how you can “see” a triangle when three dots, specifying the locations of the vertices, are present) and locations of specific parts of shapes can be attended to; see S.R. Lehky, X. Peng, C. J. McAdams, and A. B. Sereno, “Spatial Modulation of Primate Inferotemporal Responses by Eye Position,” PLoS ONE 3(10): e3492. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003492; A. B. Sereno and S. C. Amador, “Attention and Memory-Related Responses of Neurons in the Lateral Intraparietal Area During Spatial and Shape-Delayed Match-to-Sample Tasks,” Journal of Neurophysiology 95 (2006): 1078–98.
4. A. Treisman and H. Schmidt, “Illusory Conjunctions in the Perception of Objects,” Cognitive Psychology 14 (1982): 107–41.
5. J. G. Rueckl, K. R. Cave, and S. M. Kosslyn, “Why Are ‘What’ and ‘Where’ Processed by Separate Cortical Visual Systems? A Computational Investigation,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1 (1989): 171–86.
6. Melvyn Goodale and A. David Milner “Separate Visual Pathways for Perception and Action,” Trends in Neurosciences 15 (1992): 20–25.
7. S. M. Kosslyn, “You Can Play 20 Questions with Nature and Win: Categorical Versus Coordinate Spatial Relations as a Case Study,” Neuropsychologia 44 (2006): 1519–23.
8. G. Borst, W. L. Thompson, and S. M. Kosslyn, “Understanding the Dorsal and Ventral Systems of the Human Cerebral Cortex: Beyond Dichotomies,” American Psychologist 66, no. 7 (2011): 624–32.
Chapter 4: Reasoning Systems
1. S. M. Kosslyn, W. L. Thompson, and G. Ganis, The Case for Mental Imagery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
2. D. N. Levine, J. Warach, and M. J. Farah, “Two Visual Systems in Mental Imagery: Dissociation of ‘What’ and ‘Where’ in Imagery Disorders Due to Bilateral Posterior Cerebral Lesions,” Neurology 35 (1985): 1010–18.
3. As of early 2013.
4. M. Kozhevnikov, M. Hegarty, and R. E. Mayer, “Revising the Visualizer-Verbalizer Dimension: Evidence for Two Types of Visualizers,” Cognition and Instruction 20 (2002): 47–77.
5. M. Kozhevnikov, S. M. Kosslyn, and J. Shephard, “Spatial Versus Object Visualizers: A New Characterization of Cognitive Style,” Memory and Cognition 33 (2005): 710–26.
6. Ibid., 721.
7. O. Blazhenkova, M. Kozhevnikov, and M. A. Motes, “Object-Spatial Imagery: A New Self-Report Imagery Questionnaire,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 20 (2006): 239–63.
8. Ibid., 243.
9. O. Blazhenkova and M. Kozhevnikov, “Visual-Object Ability: A New Dimension of Nonverbal Intelligence,” Cognition 117 (2010): 276–301.
10. Ibid., 283.
11. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2011).
12. A. W. Woolley, J. R. Hackman, T. E. Jerde, C. F. Chabris, S. L. Bennett, and S. M. Kosslyn, “Using Brain-Based Measures to Compose Teams: How Individual Capabilities and Team Collaboration Strategies Jointly Shape Performance,” Social Neuroscience 2 (2007): 96–105.
Chapter 5: Sweeping Claims
1. R. W. Sperry, “Cerebral Organization and Behavior: The Split Brain Behaves in Many Respects Like Two Separate Brains, Providing New Research Possibilities,” Science 133 (1961): 1749–57.
2. It’s not left eye versus right eye but rather the side of each eye that’s critical.
3. Life Magazine, October 1, 1971, p. 43. The extract below this quote is also from p. 43.
4. Sperry, who died in 1994, was mentor to Antonio E. Puente, professor of psychology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, and also Sperry’s biographer. We asked him whether Sperry intended his research to give birth to the pop-culture left/right story. He wrote: “The most ‘outrageous’ comment Roger Sperry ever made that I heard was made at the acceptance of the American Psychological Association Lifetime Achievement Award. In that brief speech he said something along the lines that his left hemisphere could not adequately express the emotions that his right hemisphere [was] feeling. We have the www.rogersperry.info website, which gathers a great deal of traffic. That website produces queries along the lines that you stated. And, honestly, they are so far from the mark that it is difficult to understand where they come from. His writings were as conservative as his science. What was not was his vision and that he rarely shared.”
5. R. W. Sperry, “Consciousness, Personal Identity and the Divided Brain,” Neuropsychologia 22 (1984): 661–73.
6. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-yhtXAzYwc. There are many other postings. The spinning dancer was revealed to be an optical illusion by Steven Novella, Yale University School of Medicine clinical neurologist, on October 11, 2007, in his article “Left Brain–Right Brain and the Spinning Girl,” on his NeuroLogicaBlog: Your Daily Fix of Neuroscience, Skepticism and Critical Thinking. The correct description of the spinning dancer as optical illusion was more widely publicized in the New York Times on April 28, 2008, in a blog posting by Tara Parker-Pope, who wrote: “While the dancer does indeed reflect the brain savvy of its creator, Japanese Web designer Nobuyuki Kayahara, it is not a brain test. Instead, it is simply an optical illusion called a reversible, or ambiguous, image.”
7. See www.wherecreativitygoestoschool.com/vancouver/left_right/rb_test.htm.
8. See http://homeworktips.about.com/library/brainquiz/bl_leftrightbrain_quiz.htm.
9. See www.squidoo.com/braintest.
10. See www.amazon.com/Brainy-Baby-Inspires-Logical-Thinking/dp/B000063UYK/ref=sr_1_4?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1315481288&sr=1-4 and www.amazon.com/Brainy-Baby-Right-Brain/dp/B000063UYL/ref=pd_cp_mov_1.
11. See www.nurtureminds.com/soroban-abacus.htm.
12. See www.mastermindabacus.com/blog_abacus/abacus-stimulates-whole-brain-development/.
13. See http://www.youngevity.net/product/RG037_Brain.html.
14. About a third of left-handers have the reverse organization, with the left hemisphere performing the functions carried out by the right hemisphere of right-handed people, and vice versa; for simplicity of exposition, we will not reacknowledge this qualification throughout the text.
15. Winfrey described herself as “a right-brain kind of person” in the December 2008 issue of O: The Oprah Magazine.
16. Daniel H. Pink, A Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age. Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future (New York: Riverhead, 2005).
17. Brenda Milner, “Interhemispheric Differences in the Localization of Psychological Processes in Man,” British Medical Bulletin 27 (1971): 272–77.
18. S. Harnad and H. Steklis, “Comment on J. Paredes and M. Hepburn’s ‘The Split Brain and the Culture-and-Cognition Paradox,’ ” Current Anthropology 17 (1976): 320–22.
Chapter 6: Interacting Systems
1. H. Damasio, T. Grabowski, R. Frank, A. M. Galaburda, and A. R. Damasio, “The Return of Phineas Gage: Clues About the Brain from the Skull of a Famous Patient,” Science 264 (1994): 1102–5, doi:10.1126/science.8178168].
2. R. L. Gregory, “The Brain as an Engineering Problem,” in Current Problems in Animal Behaviour, edited by W. H. Thorpe and O. L. Zangwill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961).
Chapter 8: Origins of the Modes: Nature Versus Nurture
1. For reviews, see R. Plomin et al., Behavioral Genetics, 6th ed. (New York: Worth Publishing, 2012); K. J. Saudino, “Behavioral Genetics and Child Temperament,” Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 26 (2005): 214–23.
2. J. Kagan and N. Snidman, “Early Childhood Predictors of Adult Anxiety Disorders,” Biological Psychiatry 46 (1999): 1536–41; J. Kagan, Galen’s Prophecy: Temperament in Human Nature (New York: Basic Books, 1994).
3. M. H. McManis, J. Kagan, N. C. Snidman, and S. A. Woodward, “EEG Asymmetry, Power, and Temperament in Children,” Developmental Psychobiology 41 (2002): 169–77.
4. T. J. Bouchard, “Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits: A Survey,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 13 (2004): 148–51.
5. Ruth’s lifetime batting average was .342; Williams’s, .344.
6. I. Biederman and M. M. Shiffrar, “Sexing Day-Old Chicks: A Case Study and Expert Systems Analysis of a Difficult Perceptual-Learning Task,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13 (1987): 640–45.
7. K. A. Ericsson, W. G. Chase, and S. Faloon, “Acquisition of a Memory Skill,” Science 208 (1980): 1181–82.
Chapter 11: Stimulator Mode
1. A summary of several polls on Sarah Palin and the 2008 presidential election is found at www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm.
2. Palin’s comments were widely reported. Among other places, a full text was published at: http://thepage.time.com/2011/01/12/palin-journalists-and-pundits-tried-to-manufacture-a-blood-libel/.
1 J. M. Weiss, “Effects of Coping Behavior in Different Warning Signal Conditions on Stress Pathology in Rats,” Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 77 (1971): 1–13; J. M. Weiss, “Effects of Coping Behavior With and Without a Feedback Signal on Stress Pathology in Rats,” Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 77 (1971): 22–30.
Chapter 13: Test Yourself
1. S. M. Kosslyn and W. L. Thompson, “Assessing Habitual Use of Dorsal Versus Ventral Brain Processes,” Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 2 (2012; e-pub August 9, 2012): 68–76, doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2012.07.007.
2. For further information about factor analysis, see: http://mplab.ucsd.edu/tutorials/FactorAnalysis.pdf; http://rtutorialseries.blogspot.com/2011/10/r-tutorial-series-exploratory-factor.html; and http://www.chem.duke.edu/~clochmul/tutor1/factucmp.html.
3. S. D. Gosling, P. J. Rentfrow, and W. B. Swann, “A Very Brief Measure of the Big-Five Personality Domains,” Journal of Research in Personality 37 (2003): 504–28, doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
4. L. R. Goldberg, “An Alternative ‘Description of Personality’: The Big-Five Factor Structure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (1990): 1216–29, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216; R. R. McCrae and O. P. John, “An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications,” Journal of Personality 60 (1992): 175–215, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.
5. O. Blazhenkova and M. Kozhevnikov, “The New Object-Spatial-Verbal Cognitive Style Model: Theory and Measurement,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 23 (2009): 638–63.
6. D. P. Crowne and D. Marlowe, “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,” Journal of Consulting Psychology 24 (1960): 349–54.
Chapter 14: Working with Others
1. A. W. Woolley, J. R. Hackman, T. E. Jerde, C. F. Chabris, S. L. Bennett, and S. M. Kosslyn, “Using Brain-Based Measures to Compose Teams: How Individual Capabilities and Team Collaboration Strategies Jointly Shape Performance,” Social Neuroscience 2 (2007): 96–105.
2. These computer-generated shapes were created by Scott Yu, then at Yale University, who was supervised by Michael J. Tarr and Isabel Gauthier, now at Carnegie Mellon University and Vanderbilt University, respectively. For more information, see http://www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/gauthier/FoG/Greebles.
3. The new cognitive modes test, presented in the previous chapter, did not exist at the time of this experiment. It characterizes the top- and bottom-brain systems as a whole, not just by the type of mental imagery that arises from each system. Hence, we cannot say with certainty that these people in general relied on Stimulator Mode and Perceiver Mode.
4. See S. M. Kosslyn, “On the Evolution of Human Motivation: The Role of Social Prosthetic Systems,” in Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience, edited by S. M. Platek, T. K. Shackelford, and J. P. Keenan (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), 541–54; and S. M. Kosslyn, “Social Prosthetic Systems and Human Motivation: One Reason Why Cooperation Is Fundamentally Human,” in Evolution, Games and God: The Principle of Cooperation, edited by S. Coakley and M. Nowak (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013).
5. New York Times, August 5, 2012.
6. S. M. Kosslyn, “On the Evolution of Human Motivation: The Role of Social Prosthetic Systems.”