Why bilateral damage is worse than unilateral damage to the brainCitation formats

Standard

Why bilateral damage is worse than unilateral damage to the brain. / Schapiro, Anna C.; McClelland, James L.; Welbourne, Stephen R.; Rogers, Timothy T.; Ralph, Matthew A Lambon.

In: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 25, No. 12, 12.2013, p. 2107-2123.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Schapiro, AC, McClelland, JL, Welbourne, SR, Rogers, TT & Ralph, MAL 2013, 'Why bilateral damage is worse than unilateral damage to the brain', Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 2107-2123. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00441

APA

Schapiro, A. C., McClelland, J. L., Welbourne, S. R., Rogers, T. T., & Ralph, M. A. L. (2013). Why bilateral damage is worse than unilateral damage to the brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(12), 2107-2123. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00441

Vancouver

Schapiro AC, McClelland JL, Welbourne SR, Rogers TT, Ralph MAL. Why bilateral damage is worse than unilateral damage to the brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2013 Dec;25(12):2107-2123. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00441

Author

Schapiro, Anna C. ; McClelland, James L. ; Welbourne, Stephen R. ; Rogers, Timothy T. ; Ralph, Matthew A Lambon. / Why bilateral damage is worse than unilateral damage to the brain. In: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2013 ; Vol. 25, No. 12. pp. 2107-2123.

Bibtex

@article{9f8e277dcddb43179f6c00c866c81bc5,
title = "Why bilateral damage is worse than unilateral damage to the brain",
abstract = "Human and animal lesion studies have shown that behavior can be catastrophically impaired after bilateral lesions but that unilateral damage often produces little or no effect, even controlling for lesion extent. This pattern is found across many different sensory, motor, and memory domains. Despite these findings, there has been no systematic, computational explanation. We found that the same striking difference between unilateral and bilateral damage emerged in a distributed, recurrent attractor neural network. The difference persists in simple feedforward networks, where it can be understood in explicit quantitative terms. In essence, damage both distorts and reduces the magnitude of relevant activity in each hemisphere. Unilateral damage reduces the relative magnitude of the contribution to performance of the damaged side, allowing the intact side to dominate performance. In contrast, balanced bilateral damage distorts representations on both sides, which contribute equally, resulting in degraded performance. The model's ability to account for relevant patient data suggests that mechanisms similar to those in the model may operate in the brain. {\textcopyright} 2013 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.",
author = "Schapiro, {Anna C.} and McClelland, {James L.} and Welbourne, {Stephen R.} and Rogers, {Timothy T.} and Ralph, {Matthew A Lambon}",
year = "2013",
month = dec
doi = "10.1162/jocn_a_00441",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "2107--2123",
journal = "Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience",
issn = "0898-929X",
publisher = "MIT Press Journals",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why bilateral damage is worse than unilateral damage to the brain

AU - Schapiro, Anna C.

AU - McClelland, James L.

AU - Welbourne, Stephen R.

AU - Rogers, Timothy T.

AU - Ralph, Matthew A Lambon

PY - 2013/12

Y1 - 2013/12

N2 - Human and animal lesion studies have shown that behavior can be catastrophically impaired after bilateral lesions but that unilateral damage often produces little or no effect, even controlling for lesion extent. This pattern is found across many different sensory, motor, and memory domains. Despite these findings, there has been no systematic, computational explanation. We found that the same striking difference between unilateral and bilateral damage emerged in a distributed, recurrent attractor neural network. The difference persists in simple feedforward networks, where it can be understood in explicit quantitative terms. In essence, damage both distorts and reduces the magnitude of relevant activity in each hemisphere. Unilateral damage reduces the relative magnitude of the contribution to performance of the damaged side, allowing the intact side to dominate performance. In contrast, balanced bilateral damage distorts representations on both sides, which contribute equally, resulting in degraded performance. The model's ability to account for relevant patient data suggests that mechanisms similar to those in the model may operate in the brain. © 2013 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

AB - Human and animal lesion studies have shown that behavior can be catastrophically impaired after bilateral lesions but that unilateral damage often produces little or no effect, even controlling for lesion extent. This pattern is found across many different sensory, motor, and memory domains. Despite these findings, there has been no systematic, computational explanation. We found that the same striking difference between unilateral and bilateral damage emerged in a distributed, recurrent attractor neural network. The difference persists in simple feedforward networks, where it can be understood in explicit quantitative terms. In essence, damage both distorts and reduces the magnitude of relevant activity in each hemisphere. Unilateral damage reduces the relative magnitude of the contribution to performance of the damaged side, allowing the intact side to dominate performance. In contrast, balanced bilateral damage distorts representations on both sides, which contribute equally, resulting in degraded performance. The model's ability to account for relevant patient data suggests that mechanisms similar to those in the model may operate in the brain. © 2013 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

U2 - 10.1162/jocn_a_00441

DO - 10.1162/jocn_a_00441

M3 - Article

C2 - 23806177

VL - 25

SP - 2107

EP - 2123

JO - Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

JF - Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

SN - 0898-929X

IS - 12

ER -