Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 484

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 424 of the 424 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Brain Lateralization: A Comparative Perspective

Open access
Güntürkün, Onur, Ströckens, Felix, Ocklenburg, Sebastian·2020·Physiological Reviews
DOI 10.1152/physrev.00006.2019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Comparative studies on brain asymmetry date back to the 19th century but then largely disappeared due to the assumption that lateralization is uniquely human. Since the reemergence of this field in the 1970s, we learned that left-right differences of brain and behavior exist throughout the animal kingdom and pay off in terms of sensory, cognitive, and motor efficiency. Ontogenetically, lateralization starts in many species with asymmetrical expression patterns of genes within the Nodal cascade that set up the scene for later complex interactions of genetic, environmental, and epigenetic factors. These take effect during different time points of ontogeny and create asymmetries of neural networks in diverse species. As a result, depending on task demands, left- or right-hemispheric loops of feedforward or feedback projections are then activated and can temporarily dominate a neural process. In addition, asymmetries of commissural transfer can shape lateralized processes in each hemisphere. It is still unclear if interhemispheric interactions depend on an inhibition/excitation dichotomy or instead adjust the contralateral temporal neural structure to delay the other hemisphere or synchronize with it during joint action. As outlined in our review, novel animal models and approaches could be established in the last decades, and they already produced a substantial increase of knowledge. Since there is practically no realm of human perception, cognition, emotion, or action that is not affected by our lateralized neural organization, insights from these comparative studies are crucial to understand the functions and pathologies of our asymmetric brain.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/physrev.00006.2019

Cites

424 of 424 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 484

Metadata

Authors
Güntürkün, O., Ströckens, F., & Ocklenburg, S.
Venue
Physiological Reviews
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
2020-07-01
Volume
100
Issue
3
Pages
1019-1063
ISSN
  • 0031-9333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1210
DOI
10.1152/physrev.00006.2019
OpenAlex
W3014819045
Cited by
484
References
424
FWCI
7.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.