EFTA00301227.pdf

Provided for non-commercial research and education use. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use. II samwx.. I %mace I erneraa Cortex This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier's archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright EFTA00301227 Authors personal copy ELSEVIER CORTEX 49 (2033) Zoo -210 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cortex &Hie\ Research report Hemispheric asymmetries of cortical volume in the human brain `s Elkhonon Goldberg a'', Donovan Roedigera, N. Erkut Kucukboyaci ail', Chad Carlson a, Orrin Devinsky °, Ruben Kuzniecky a, Eric Halgren b and Thomas Thesen a a New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA b Multimodal Imaging Laboratory, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 19 June 2011 Reviewed 2 September 2011 Revised 27 September 2011 Accepted 28 October 2011 Action editor Alan Beaton Published online 19 November 2011 Keywords: MRI morphometry Cortical asymmetry Hemispheric specialization Prefrontal cortex Parietal cortex ABSTRACT Hemispheric asymmetry represents a cardinal feature of cerebral organization, but the nature of structural and functional differences between the hemispheres is far from fully understood. Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging morphometry, we identified several volumetric differences between the two hemispheres of the human brain. Heteromodal inferopanetal and lateral prefrontal cortices are more extensive in the right than left hemisphere, as is visual cortex. Heteromodal mesial and orbital prefrontal and cingulate cortices are more extensive in the left than right hemisphere, as are somatosensory, parts of motor, and auditory cortices. Thus, heteromodal association cortices are more exten- sively represented on the lateral aspect of the right than in the left hemisphere, and modality-specific cortices are more extensively represented on the lateral aspect of the left than in the right hemisphere. On the mesial aspect heteromodal association cortices are more extensively represented in the left than right hemisphere. QD 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Hemispheric specialization is among the central features of functional cortical organization in humans. Recognition of the functional differences between the hemispheres often trig- gers interest in their morphological differences and vice versa. Indeed, gross morphological differences between the hemispheres are particularly interesting if they can be related to functional differences. The degree to which such relation- ships can be drawn remains uncertain, since the relationship between brain biology and function may be expressed on many levels other than that of gross morphology (cytoarchi- tectonic, biochemical, etc.). Thus any attempt to infer regional brain function from regional brain morphology, however tempting, requires great caution and any assertion of a "bigger is better" structure—function relationship must be tempered by this caveat. Such concerns notwithstanding, evidence is growing that a reasonably direct 'bigger is better" relationship often does exist between functional proficiency and gross morphometric cortical characteristics of the underlying * Authors' Note: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of New York University. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. We thank Dmitri Bougakov, Barry Cohen, Michal Harciarek, Dolores Malaspina, Ralph Nixon, and Kenneth Podell for their comments. ' Corresponding author. NYU School of Medicine, 145 East 32nd Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10016, USA. E-mail addresses: ellchonon.goldbergenyurric.org, egneurocogeaol.com (E. Goldberg). 0010-9452/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.11.002 EFTA00301228 Author's personal copy CORTEX 49 (2013) 200-210 201 substrate, such as regional volume or surface area size (Blackmon et al., 2010; Draganski et al., 2004; Fleming et al., 2010; Maguire et al., 2000; Schneider et al., 2002). Early efforts to identify morphological hemispheric asym- metries were to a large degree motivated by the desire to identify the biological bases of the asymmetric cortical language representation. A number of morphological asym- metries have been described, notably involving planum tem- perate and pars opercularis, and their relationship to left hemispheric dominance for language asserted, but some of the particularly influential findings were reported several decades ago using what methodologies were available then (Geschwind and Levitsky, 1968; Galaburda et al., 1978; LeMay and Culebras, 1972). Subsequent research confirmed these structural asymmetries (Foundas et al., 1994, 1995; Anderson et al., 1999; Watkins et al., 2001) but demonstrated that the relationship between structural asymmetries in the planum temperate and language lateralization is not nearly as strong or as direct as asserted earlier, and the very existence of such a relationship has been scrutinized (Beaton, 1997). Other structural asymmetries have also been described and subse- quently confirmed, notably "Yakovlevian torque" (Yakovlev, 1972; Yakovlev and Rakic, 1966; Watkins et al., 2001; Nan et al., 2007) characterized by the right frontal and left occip- ital protrusions, whose possible relationship to any functional asymmetries remains unclear. Regional hemispheric asym- metries both in cortical thickness (Luders et al., 2006) and volume (Good et al., 2001), both in gray and white matter (Penhune et al., 1996; Takao et al., 2011) have been reported. Any morphometric comparison of the two hemispheres may be complicated by individual variability, which is particularly pronounced in certain structures, e.g., anterior cingulate and paracingulate cortex (Forint° et al., 2004; Huster et al., 2007). Furthermore, there is a growing appreciation of sex-linked differences in regional brain morphology (Witelson, 1989; Habib et al., 1991; Crespo-Facorro et al., 2001), including hemispheric asymmetries (Luders et al., 2009; Raz et al., 2004), as well as age-related hemispheric differences (Raz et al., 2004; Shaw et al., 2009). Our understanding of the functional differences between the two hemispheres has also been refined beyond the classic distinction between verbal and visuo-spatial asymmetries. Additional functional differences have been described, notably those linking the right hemisphere to cognitive novelty and exploratory behavior and the left hemisphere to cognitive familiarity and routinization. Since this functional asymmetry was first proposed (Goldberg and Costa, 1981; Goldberg et al., 1994a), it has found support with various neuroimaging tech- niques, including PET (Gold et al., 1996; Shadmehr and Holcomb, 1997), fMR1 (Henson et al., 2000), and high- frequency EEG (Karniya et al., 2002). It has been argued that the "novelty-routinization" functional hemispheric asymme- try is fundamental and irreducible to the more commonly invoked language-visuospatial asymmetry, since it is present in a wide range of mammalian species (Vallortigara, 2000; Vallortigara and Rogers, 2005; Vallortigara et al., 1999). To account for these functional differences, it has been proposed that systematic differences between the two hemi- spheres exist in relative cortical space allocation to hetero- modal association cortices versus modality-specific cortices (Goldberg and Costa, 1981). If this were to be the case, the functional implications of such cortical space allocation differences could be intriguing and would merit further examination. However, this assertion was based on old find- ings and was limited to cortical convexity; therefore its val- idity must be re-examined with up-to-date methods which would target both lateral and mesial aspects of the hemi- spheres. Here, we report hemispheric differences in regional human brain volume across multiple cortical regions, both lateral and mesial, using the more recently developed Free- Surfer Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) processing meth- odology (Fischl and Dale, 2000; Fischl et al., 2004). The particular focus of this paper is to ascertain any systematic differences in cortical space allocation to heteromodal versus modality-specific cortices in the two hemispheres. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants Structural MR1 data from adults (N = 39) aged 19-40 (Kr, = 27.75, standard deviation — SD,r, = 6.12; 19 females and 20 males) were analyzed. Participants were all right- handed as determined by the Edinburgh Handedness Inven- tory (Oldfield, 1971) with scores ranging from 40 to 100. They were all free of neurological, psychiatric, or neuro- developmental disorders based on screening interviews. They were recruited as part of a community-based normative reference sample at NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center. 2.2. Imaging data acquisition Two Tl-weighted volumes VT = 3.25 msec, TR = 2530 msec, TI = 1.100 msec, flip angle = 7°, field of view (FOV) = 256 mm, voxel size = 1 x 1 x 1.33 mm) were obtained for each partici- pant on a 3T Siemens Allegra scanner, acquisition parameters optimized for increased gray/white matter contrast, rigid body co-registered, and common space-reoriented. Images were automatically corrected for spatial distortion, registered, averaged to improve signal-to-noise ratio, and processed with the FreeSurfer (4.0.2) software (httpWsurfer.nmr.mgh. harvard.edu). Each T1-weighted image took 8:07 min. 2.3. Imaging data processing Averaged volumetric MRI images were used to model each subject's cortical surface with an automated procedure involving white-matter segmentation, gray/white matter boundary tessellation, inflation of folded surface tessellation, and automatic topological defect correction (Dale et al., 1999; Fisch' et al., 2001). Automated analysis was performed on a 156 node computing duster and took approximately 32 h per scan. Each analysis was then manually inspected which took, depending on segmentation quality, 20-40 min. Measures of cortical thickness were obtained by constructing estimates of the gray/ white matter boundaty by classifying all white matter voxels in the MR1 volume. The white matter surface was submillimeter accuracy-refined in delineating the gray/white matter EFTA00301229 Author's personal copy 202 CORTEX 49 (2013) 200-210 junction. Estimates of cortical thickness were made by measuring (1) the shortest distance from each point on the white matter surface to the pial surface, and (2) the shortest distance from each point on the pial surface to the white matter surface. Cortical thickness at each vertex was computed as the average of the two values. The accuracy of automatic parcellation methods is often undermined by indi- vidual variability. For this and other reasons, manual quality inspection was performed on all reconstructions and required manual intervention in 5% of scans. All of these cases were reinspected and all yielded good segmentation results. Maps were smoothed with a Gaussian kernel (10 mm FWHM) across the surface. Cortical surfaces from different individuals were morphed to a common reference brain by aligning sulcal—gyral patterns while minimizing shear and metric distortions (Fischl et at, 1999). Automatic parcellation of the cortical surface was performed with sulco-gyral neuroanatomic labels derived by probabilistic information. Past research has validated these automatic labels against anatomical manual labels and 85% of the surface was found to be concordant (Destrieux et al., 2009, 2010). Parcel regions of interest (ROI) designation as 'gyrus" or "sulcus" was based on the values of local mean curvature and average convexity, obtained from the reconstructed cortical surfaces output from FreeSurfer, relative to a given threshold; vertices with values below the threshold were considered sulcal, and vertices with values equal to or above this threshold were considered gyral. A total of 75 ROI were identified in each hemisphere. In each ROI, cortical thickness estimates were averaged across all vertices. Regional volumes were calculated as the product of surface area and average cortical thickness. For the whole-sample analysis, a laterality index (U) — as defined by Nagata et al. (2001) — was used to control for sex- linked variability in global brain volume. Regional LI values were calculated for each subject using the following equation: Left — Right LI x 100 Left + Right This index spans from —100 to 100 with positive values indicating leftward asymmetry, negative values indicating rightward asymmetry, and zero indicating perfect symmetry. For each ROI, a two-tailed single-sample t- test was used to compare the distribution of LI values against zero. To main- tain an experiment-wise error rate of .0S, Bonferroni correc- tion (a = .00067) was employed to address the problem of multiple comparisons, where the number of comparisons was 75. In separate analyses by sex, paired-sample t-tests were used to compare left and right regional volumes among each pair of contralateral ROIs. An identical Bonferroni correction method was utilized for these pairwise tests. Areas were considered asymmetric if the statistical significance criterion (a = .00067) was reached. Reported visualizations map statis- tical results on the 3D whole brain volume (with the parcel boundaries between the structures exhibiting the same direction of laterality removed for visual clarity). 3. Results Since we were interested in the relationship between func- tionally distinctive cortical regions, the analysis has been conducted in terms of ROts volumes, each derived from cortical thickness measures and surface area parcellation boundaries. We found multiple regional hemispheric asym- metries which are summarized in Fig. 1 and Table 1. In order to highlight the most robust and best articulated patterns of asymmetries, the results and discussion below detail only those asymmetries which remained significant at p <.0S level after a rigorous Bonferroni correction for multiple compari- sons was applied (a = .00067). This correction, which lowers Type I errors at the expense of Type II errors, highlighted the most prominent asymmetries. These are summarized in Fig. 2 and described below. Here we present the result of regional cortical volume comparisons. We found that regional cortical surface comparisons were generally consistent with the volume comparisons Thickness comparisons yielded few significant asymmetries when rigorous statistical criteria were used. 3.1. Whole-sample asymmetries (males and females combined) Fig. lA shows uncorrected p values, while Fig. 2A shows post- Bonferroni significant asymmetries for the whole sample. The superior frontal gyms, superior frontal sulcus, frontomarginal sulcus, suborbital sulcus, gyms rectos, postcentral gyms, postcentral sulcus, tinplate gyms, paracentral gyms, subcentral gyros, transverse temporal gyri, superior temporal gyms (lateral aspect), planum temporale, superior parietal gyms, anterior occipital sulcus, ascending ramus of the lateral fissure, and circular insular sulcus (superior and inferior aspects) were larger in the left than right (L > R) hemisphere across the whole sample (all p values < .00067). Conversely, the inferior parietal gyms, superior occipital gyms, lingual gyms, calcarine sulcus, lateral fissure (posterior segment), collateral transverse sulcus, middle frontal sulcus, subparietal sulcus, anterior subcentral sulcus, superior temporal sulcus, cingulate sulcus, the lateral aspect of orbital gyri, pericallosal sulcus, and Jensen sulcus were larger in the right than left (R> L) hemispheres (all p values < .00067). This is summarized in Fig. 2A, where regions larger in the right hemisphere are depicted in yellow and regions larger in the left hemisphere are depicted in blue. 3.2. Analyses of sex-linked differences When grouped by sex, leftward asymmetries (L > P) of the anterior occipital sulcus and lateral aspect of superior temporal gyms were significant in females (both p values < .00067) but not males (p > .05 and p < .005, respectively) while the cingulate gyms, planum temporale, and superior frontal sulcus were significantly larger on the left in males (all p values < .00067) but not females (p < .05, p < .005, and p < .005, respectively). Conversely, rightward asymmetry (R > L) of the lingual gyms occurred in females (p < .00067) but not males (p < .005) and the subparietal sulcus was significantly larger in the right hemisphere in males (p < .00067) but not females (p < .005). Notably, the superior temporal and Jensen sulci and the lateral aspect of orbital gyri both failed to reach significance in either sex alone despite displaying significant rightward asymmetry in the EFTA00301230 Author's personal copy CORTEX 49 (2013) 200-210 Significance (p) <.00005 .0005 .005 .05 .05 .005 .0005 <.00005 L > R R > L 203 Pig. 1 - Regional cortical volume asymmetries in the two hemispheres uncorrected for multiple comparisons. Direction of differences and uncorrected significance levels are coded according to the color bar below: (A) whole-sample, (B) females only, (C) males only. whole-sample analysis. No parcels revealed significant later- ality in opposing directions across sexes. Sex-specific results are detailed in Table 2. Fig. 111 and C shows uncorrected p values for females and males, respec- tively, while Pig. 2B and C shows post-Bonferroni significant asymmetries for each sex. Although Pigs. 1 and 2 appear to suggest sex differences, an ANOVA failed to reveal significant interactions between sex and laterality in any ROI. 4. Discussion In this study we intentionally adopted a conservative signifi- cance criterion for data analysis, in order to identify a rela- tively small number of the most robust hemispheric differences while possibly overlooking less robust differences. As a result, several distinct asymmetry patterns emerged, which are discussed below. 4.1. Heteromodal association cortical asymmetries We found differences in the hemispheric representation of heteromodal association cortices. Heteromodal inferoparietal and ventrolateral prefrontal cortices are more extensive in the right than left hemisphere. By contrast, mesial and orbital prefrontal and cingulate cortices are more extensive in the left than right hemisphere. These asymmetries closely parallel the findings by Luders et aL (2006) pertaining to cortical thickness. Thus it appears that heteromodal association regions found on the lateral (convexital) aspect of the hemisphere, are more extensive in the right than in the left hemisphere, as predicted earlier (Goldberg and Costa, 1981). This is true both for the EFTA00301231 uthor's personal copy 204 CORTEX 4.9 (201 3) 200-210 Table 1 Regional volumetric comparisons and Lls - + x 1001 for males and females combined. For each ROI, the means a are listed. nd SDs of right and left hemisphere cortical volume (mm3) measurements, as well as the means and SDs of Lls, ROI Mean (SD) Sig. Left (mm^3) Right (inntA3) Ll Anterior occipital sulcus 1097.4 (274.3) 895.8 (298.2) 11.07 (17.52) <.05• Calcarine sulcus 3381.8 (699.1) 3903.7 (709.3) -7.21 (5.62) <.054 Central insular sulcus 289.1 (81) 258.5 (72.9) 5.73 (20.7) n.s. Central sulcus 3609.6 (492) 3488.8 (633) 1.96 (5.57) n.s. Cingulate and intracingulate sulci 6797.9 (956.1) 9525.1 (1372.4) -16.63 (6.06) <.05• Cingulate gyms 9740.8 (968.5) 3979.2 (710.1) 8.44 (11.18) <.05' Cingulate sulcus (marginalis part) 1332.1 (259.9) 1312.5 (309.3) 1.11 (11.42) n.s. Circular sulcus of insula (anterior) 935.5 (153.3) 1050.3 (266.4) -5.06 (8.77) n.s. Circular sulcus of insula (inferior) 2299.2 (332.3) 1908.4 (270.8) 9.22 (5.87) <.054 Circular sulcus of insula (superior) 2778 (367.8) 2199.3 (324.6) 11.68 (5.8) <.05• Collateral transverse sulcus (anterior) 1523.3 (388.8) 1673.2 (473.8) -4.47 (15.35) n.s. Collateral transverse sulcus (posterior) 492.8 (155.3) 762.6 (212.9) -21.3 (16.74) <.05• Cuneus 3907.2 (597.6) 3399.4 (654.4) 31 (7.98) n.s. Frontomarginal gyms 1032.2 (290.9) 1196.8 (314.9) -7.71 (13.01) n.s. Frontomarginal sulcus 1006.4 (252.7) 764.5 (190.2) 13.19 (14.95) <.054 Cyrus rectos 2154.9 (361.5) 1669 (302.1) 12.67 (8.52) <.054 H-shaped orbital sulcus 2502 (395.1) 2428.2 (401) 1.55 (8.04) n.s. Inferior frontal gyms (opercular part) 3903.2 (653.1) 3150.7 (503) 3.59 (8.45) n.s. Inferior frontal gyms (orbital part) 871 (291.7) 935.2 (233.6) -4.26 (16.47) n.s. Inferior frontal gyms (triangular part) 2698.4 (453) 2704.8 (546.5) .18 (9.12) n.s. Inferior frontal sulcus 3101.6 (798.6) 2968.4 (479.9) 1.63 (9.78) n.s. Inferior occipital gyrus and sulcus 2797 (717.6) 2832.9 (628.7) -1.05 (12.42) n.s. Inferior parietal gyms (angular part) 5535.6 (868.2) 6946.9 (1132.1) -11.69 (7.6) <.09 Inferior parietal gyms (supramarginal part) 6671.4 (1173.9) 6465.7 (1011.6) 1.39 (6.57) n.s. Inferior temporal gyms 6362.9 (1149.1) 6227 (1315) .89 (8.09) n.s. Inferior temporal sulcus 1972.1 (987.2) 1793.4 (444.1) 4.63 (12.13) n.s. Insular gyms (long) 870.4 (298.7) 874.4 (172.8) -.84 (9.26) n.s. Insular gyrus (short) 1852.7 (326.6) 1776.1 (355.4) 2.38 (7.17) n.s. Intraparietal and transverse parietal sulci 3815.8 (522.2) 9022 (579.3) -2.58 (7.02) n.s. Isthmus 351.4 (101.7) 375.3 (100.4) -3.64 (12.05) n.s. Lateral fissure (horizontal ramus) 499 (191.6) 578.6 (124.1) -7.81 (13.96) n.s. Lateral fissure (posterior) 1638 (271.5) 1968.1 (250.6) -9.34 (7.33) <.0511 Lateral fissure (vertical ramus) 598.4 (166.7) 435.1 (139.5) 15.52 (21.28) <.05' Lateral occipito-temporal gyms (fusiform) 9522.9 (751) 4192.5 (804.7) 3.92 (8.47) n.s. Lateral orbital gyms 6260.5 (998.2) 6802.1 (1197.1) -4.07 (5.4) <.054 Lateral orbital sulcus 628.8 (200.3) 727.4 (299.4) -6.1 (17.97) n.s. Lingual gyms 5609.9 (930.2) 6546.4 (960.8) -7.78 (7.11) <.05• Medial occipito-temporal and lingual sulci 3187.2 (574.5) 3187.3 (654.1) .11 (7.95) n.s. Medial occipito-temporal gyms (parahippocampal part) 9242.8 (565.7) 4494.5 (554.2) -2.91 (7.24) n.s. Medial orbital sulcus 913 (199.8) 858.3 (173.4) 3.34 (10.05) n.s. Medial wall 5543.9 (1079.9) 5513.1 (733.2) -2.1 (5.7) n.s. Middle frontal gyms 9632.9 (1944.6) 10211.8 (1836.7) -3.1 (7.08) n.s. Middle occipital gyms 9911.2 (579.7) 9563 (739.8) -1.49 (7.36) n.s. Middle occipital sulcus and sulcus lunatus 1550 (920.7) 1589.4 (534.9) -.32 (17.4) n.s. Middle temporal gyms 8128.8 (1368.6) 8497.4 (1359.7) -2.29 (5.48) n.s. Occipito-temporal sulcus (lateral) 1328.6 (331.5) 1413.6 (338.3) -3.3 (11.28) n.s. Paracentral gyrus 2554.8 (914.5) 2101 (337.4) 9.77 (8.13) <.05• Paracentral sulcus 318.5 (94.2) 275.2 (84.8) 7.52 (18.39) n.s. Parieto-occipital sulcus 2643.4 (591) 2828.1 (496.8) -3.62 (7.44) n.s. Pericallosal sulcus 1303.4 (211.3) 1592.1 (275.5) -9.88 (9.03) <.05• Planum polare 1873.4 (387.7) 1950.1 (400.5) -2.05 (9.81) n.s. Planum temporale 2293.3 (493.9) 1887.6 (361.7) 9.35 (11.89) <.054 Postcentral gyrus 4201.2 (677) 3556.1 (710.2) 8.57 (6.99) <.05• Postcentral sulcus 3794.8 (698.6) 3006.9 (759.1) 12.13 (8.64) <.05' Precentral gyms 6246.9 (825.9) 6211.5 (959.3) .41 (5.48) n.s. Precentral sulcus (inferior part) 2975.8 (571.5) 2615.8 (317) -3.49 (9.88) n.s. Precentral sulcus (superior part) 1933.5 (967.3) 2062.4 (398.2) —158 (11.84) n.s. Precuneus gyms 5724.6 (800.9) 5285.8 (8S7.5) —.05 (5.38) n.s. Subcallosal gyms 315.6 (194.3) 256.6 (81.8) 7.29 (30.36) n.s. EFTA00301232 205 Lit.'• 1 (continued) ROI Mean (SD) Left (mm^3) Right (mm^3) LI Subcentral gyrus 2573.9 (395) 1986.4 (386.4) 13.06 (9.43) <L0P Subcentral sulcus (anterior) 163.3 (83.8) 287.9 (109.5) -27.61 (29.22) c.09 Subcentral sulcus (posterior) 499.5 (148.3) 440 (123.2) 5.92 (16.33) n.s. Suborbital sulcus 1007.7 (249.5) 617.1 (185.8) 24.38 (13.13) <.05' Subparietal sulcus 1694.1 (342.2) 2081.9 (484.4) -9.78 (10.09) <.09 Sulcus intermedius primus (Jensen) 546.2 (259) 704.3 (275.5) -13.65 (22.15) <.05' Superior frontal gyrus 20151 (2783.3) 18661.6 (2336) 3.75 (2.92) <.05' Superior frontal sulcus 4794.6 (972.9) 4085.2 (909.9) 7.99 (8.3) <.05' Superior occipital gyms 2455.3 (452) 3098.4 (612.4) -11.34 (8.25) <.05' Superior occipital sulcus and sulcus transversalis 1699.7 (327.5) 1815.1 (327.8) -4.82 (10.95) n.s. Superior parietal gyms 5735 (977.9) 4746.1 (718.8) 9.25 (6.23) <.05' Superior temporal gyms (lateral aspect) 5907.4 (842.2) 5138.2 (788.9) 7.01 (6.41) <.05' Superior temporal sulcus 8790.3 (1275.9) 9666.6 (1151.9) -4.89 (5.61) <.05' Temporal pole 5607.1 (836.1) 5968.2 (678.1) -1.07 (6.29) n.s. Transverse temporal gyrus and intermediate sulcus 1087.6 (206.2) 840.1 (184.9) 12.94 (9.61) ‹.05' Transverse temporal sulcus 531.3 (137.2) 456.7 (100.8) 7.16 (13.78) n.s. a After Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. inferoparietal and for parts of the lateral prefrontal regions. By contrast, heteromodal association cortices found on the mesial and orbital aspects of the hemisphere are more extensive in the left than in the right hemisphere. This is true for the mesial prefrontal regions, as well as for the cingulate cortex. The dual dissociation in the volumetric asymmetries of lateral versus mesial heteromodal association cortices is not commonly mentioned in the literature on hemispheric differences, but it Fig. 2 — Regional cortical volume asymmetries in the two hemispheres corrected for multiple comparisons. Regions significantly larger after the correction ( p < .05) in the left hemisphere are in blue; regions significantly larger in the right hemisphere are in yellow: (A) whole-sample, (B) females only, (C) males only. EFTA00301233 .uthor's personal copy 206 CORTEX 4.9 (2013) 200-2 ID Table 2 lb each ROI, th gional volumetric comparisons in separate sexes. Data are presented separately for males and females. For e means and SDs of right and left hemisphere cortical volume (mm3) measurements are listed. ROI Males Females Mean (SD) Sig. Mean (SD) Sig. Left (mmA3) Right (mmA3) Left (mmA3) Right (mmA3) Anterior occipital sulcus 1092 (272.3) 950.6 (257.8) ns. 1103.1 (283.9) 838.1 (332.8) <.05° Calcarine sulcus 3462.6 (698) 4012.5 (736.4) <.05° 3296.8 (600.3) 3789.1 (680.1) <.05° Central insular sulcus 309.8 (73.4) 274.7 (583) n.s. 267.4 (84.8) 241.4 (83.8) n.s. Central sulcus 3675.9 (596.9) 3670.5 (7124) n.s. 3539.9 (353.4) 32973 (484.6) n.s. Cingulate and intracingulate sulci 7042.7 (1030A) 10100.4 (1375.1) <.05° 6540.2 (820) 89193 (1106.8) <.05° Cingulate gyms 5140.9 (836.4) 4133.2 (729.2) <.05° 4319.6 (936.3) 3817.1 (670.3) n.s. Cingulate sulcus (marginalis part) 1390.7 (209.8) 1393.1 (331.4) ns. 1270.4 (297.3) 1227.7 (266.7) n.s. Circular sulcus of insula (anterior) 1009.2 (134.8) 1153.6 (313.7) ns. 857.9 (134.3) 941.7 (147.1) n.s. Circular sulcus of insula (inferior) 2417.7 (315.2) 2020.5 (271.6) <.05° 2174.4 (310.2) 1790.5 (120) <.05° Circular sulcus of insula (superior) 2928.6 (366.8) 2259.9 (348.5) <.05° 2619.6 (303.2) 2135.5 (293) <.05° Collateral transverse sulcus (anterior) 1548.2 (334.1) 1657.7 (557.5) ns. 1497 (447) 16895 (381.1) n.s. Collateral transverse sulcus (posterior) 522.5 (184.5) 828.4 (218.7) <.05° 461.6 (113.8) 6914 (188) <.05° Cuneus 3631.2 (480) 3575.4 (783.5) ns. 3171.5 (524.8) 3214.3 (430.9) n.s. Frontomarginal gyrus 1154.7 (279.1) 1331.5 (343.5) ns. 903.3 (249.5) 1054.9 (208.4) n.s. Frontomarginal sulcus 1077.7 (252.4) 805.2 (211.3) n.s. 931.4 (236.5) 721.6 (159.6) n.s. Cyrus rectus 2318.7 (328.2) 1800 (310.4) <.05° 1981.5 (317.3) 1531.3 (227.7) <.05° H-shaped orbital sulcus 2573.1 (435.9) 2538.3 (433.2) n.s. 2427.3 (342.8) 2312.3 (337.3) n.s. Inferior frontal gyms (opercular part) 3608.3 (766.2) 3252.9 (523.2) n.s. 3181.1 (426.6) 3043.2 (470.6) n.s. Inferior frontal gyms (orbital part) 907.8 (262.4) 989.3 (271.4) n.s. 832.3 (218.2) 878.3 (175.5) n.s. Inferior frontal gyms (triangular part) 2809.5 (520) 2880.6 (537.6) n.s. 2581.6 (345.9) 2519.7 (504.9) n.s. Inferior frontal sulcus 3274 (960.3) 3085 (582.1) n.s. 2920 (376.7) 2845.6 (312.2) n.s. Inferior occipital gyrus and sulcus 2997.7 (7444 2953 (578.9) n.s. 2585.8 (640) 2706.5 (669.2) n.s. Inferior parietal gyms (angular part) 5673.6 (872.9) 7436.8 (1005.8) <.05° 5390.3 (862.3) 6431.2 (1044.2) <.05° Inferior parietal gyms (supramarginal part) 7077.1 (1204) 6718 (1118) n.s. 6244.3 (1001.9) 6203 (834.2) n.s. Inferior temporal gyms 6877.1 (1152.9) 6610.4 (1209.7) n.s. 5821.7 (1558) 5823.5 (1330.7) n.s. Inferior temporal sulcus 2104.4 (452.3) 1949.2 (436.8) n.s. 1832.8 (495.2) 16213 (399.5) n.s. Insular gyms (lon) 880.1 (160.8) 925.2 (182.7) n.s. 860.2 (321) 821.1 (148) n.s. Insular gyrus (short) 1966.4 (312.4) 1931 (315) n.s. 1733.1 (304.5) 1613 (327.4) n.s. Intraparietal and transverse parietal mkt 3972.5 (538.7) 4225.4 (652.1) n.s. 3651 (461.9) 3807/ (406.5) n.s. Isthmus 373.6 (117.6) 412.4 (118.6) n.s. 328 (78.3) 336.2 (57.4) n.s. Lateral fissure (horizontal ramus) 528.7 (160) 607 (147.7) n.s. 467.7 (115.3) 548.6 (87.4) n.s. Lateral fissure (posterior) 1683.7 (313.7) 2071.6 (277.5) <.05° 1590 (216.9) 1859.1 (163.8) <.05° Lateral fissure (vertical ramus) 602.7 (159.3) 413.6 (139.2) n.s. 593.9 (178.5) 457.8 (139.9) n.s. Lateral occipito-temporal gyrus (fusiform) 4629/ (691) 4588.8 (773.3) n.s. 4409.4 (812.7) 3775.3 (614.3) n.s. Lateral orbital virus 6686 (964.1) 7314.6 (1339.5) n.s. 5812.7 (842.4) 6262.6 (729.5) n.s. Lateral orbital sulcus 691.4 (218) 790.7 (364.4) n.s. 562.9 (160.2) 6617 (199.8) n.s. Lingual gyms 5917.4 (9714) 6750.1 (984.9) n.s. 5286.3 (773.6) 6331.9 (911.2) <.05° Medial occipito-temporal and lingual sulci 3334.1 (492.3) 3461.4 (758.6) n.s. 3032.6 (625.8) 2898.8 (352.8) n.s. Medial occipito-temporal gyrus (parahippocampal part) 4443.2 (547.1) 4657.3 (514.7) n.s. 4031.9 (517.8) 4323.1 (555.2) n.s. Medial orbital sulcus 960.8 (152.5) 914 (203.5) n.s. 862.8 (132.8) 799.6 (112.5) n.s. Medial wall 5954.4 (9012) 5731.4 (551.7) n.s. 5110.9 (1105.3) 5283.2 (839.5) n.s. Middle frontal gyms 10194.3 (2124.6) 10775.8 (2222.3) n.s. 9041.1 (1580.6) 9618 (1087.8) n.s. Middle occipital gyms 4560.4 (585.1) 4793.6 (816.1) n.s. 4254.2 (545.2) 4320.2 (575.4) n.s. Middle occipital sulcus and sulcus lunatus 1576.1 (381.3) 1696.4 (491.6) n.s. 1522.6 (467.6) 1476.7 (568.3) n.s. Middle temporal gyms 8750.1 (1118.5) 9180 (1223.2) n.s. 7474.8 (1324.1) 7778.9 (1123) n.s. Occipito-temporal sulcus (lateral) 1410.3 (311.2) 1482.6 (373.5) n.s. 1242.7 (338.5) 1341 (289) n.s. Paracentral gyrus 2692.2 (368.1) 2187.8 (302.7) <.05° 2410.2 (420.3) 2011.7 (432.7) <.05° Paracentral sulcus 329 (103.9) 300.2 (73.2) ns. 307.5 (84.3) 248.8 (89.9) n.s. Parieto-occipital sulcus 2836 (541.8) 2962.5 (4314) ns. 2440.7 (472.7) 2686.6 (530.6) n.s. Pericallosal sulcus 1367.4 (185.9) 1637.4 (259.8) <.05° 1236 (220.1) 1544.4 (290.3) <.05° Planum polare 1930.8 (4252) 2051.8 (440.6) ns. 1812.9 (344.2) 1843.2 (332) n.s. Planum temporale 2407/ (581.6) 1889.6 (379.4) <.05° 2172.7 (356.4) 1885.5 (352.5) n.s. Postcentral gyms 4212.6 (7752) 3691.4 (715.1) <.05° 4189.2 (577.2) 3413.8 (695.2) <.05° Postcentral sulcus 4077.7 (652.3) 3292.3 (858) <.05° 3497.1 (506.3) 2706.4 (503.7) <.05° Precentral gyms 6533.2 (884.7) 6609.1 (1009.6) ns. 5945.6 (653.4) 5792.9 (711.6) n.s. Precentral sulcus (inferior part) 2544.3 (636) 2665 (370.5) ns. 2403.7 (502) 2564/ (248.8) n.s. Precentral sulcus (superior part) 2083/ (552) 2239.4 (356.1) 1775.2 (296.2) 1876.1 (359.8) n.s. Precuneus gyms 5590.3 (929.6) 5663.8 (986.3) 4942.4 (461.5) 4887/ (446.9) n.s. Subcallosal gyms 318.8 (155.1) 244.3 (85.5) 312.3 (136.3) 269.6 (77.8) n.s. EFTA00301234 Author's personal copy CORTEX 4.9 (2013) 200-210 207 in .(condnued) ROI Mean (SD) Sig. Mean (SD) Sig. Left (mmA3) Right (mmA3) Left (mmA3) Right (mmA3) Subcentral gyms 2625.2 (482.1) 2011.2 (400.1) <.05" 2519.8 (279.2) 1960.3 (380.6) <.05" Subcentral sulcus (anterior) 168.8 (95) 301.6 (107.5) as. 157.4 (72.2) 273.5 (112.6) n.s. Subcentral sulcus (posterior) 534.4 (146.5) 454.4 (107) as. 462.9 (144.9) 424.7 (139.7) n.s. Suborbital sulcus 1096 (262.8) 704.2 (184.8) <.05" 914.8 (201.9) 525.5 (139.9) <.05" Subparietal sulcus 1765.3 (416.6) 2190.8 (539) <.05" 1619.1 (228.8) 1967.2 (403.3) n.s. Sulcus intermedius primus (Jensen) 606.2 (265.4) 811.3 (326.8) as. 483.1 (231.7) 591.7 (146.5) n.s. Superior frontal gyms 21154.3 (3018.9) 19435.4 (2431.2) <.05" 19094.9 (2106.8) 17487.1 (1978.6) <.05" Superior frontal sulcus 5054.1 (971.2) 4238.2 (987.4) <.05" 4521.4 (921.4) 3924.1 (815.7) n.s. Superior occipital gyms 2620.8 (489.4) 3457.7 (536.6) <.05° 2281.2 (340.7) 2720.2 (439.6) <.05" Superior occipital sulcus and sulcus transversalis 1712 (354.6) 1807.6 (397.4) as. 1584.1 (291.3) 1822.9 (245.1) n.s. Superior parietal gyms 6141 (944.5) 5011 (745.6) <.05* 5307.7 (837.6) 4467.3 (586.5) <.05" Superior temporal gyms (lateral aspect) 6205.8 (902.2) 5509 (727.7) as. 5593.4 (659.6) 4747.8 (664.2) <.05' Superior temporal sulcus 9046.6 (1251.5) 10057.2 (1069) as. 8520.5 (1278.1) 9255.6 (1116.8) n.s. Temporal pole 5982.5 (642.5) 5987.8 (612.6) as. 5211.9 (847.7) 5393.4 (619.1) n.s. Transverse temporal gyms and intermediate sulcus 1124.6 (238.6) 872.7 (213.9) <16' 1048.6 (162.8) 807.5 (147) <.05" Transverse temporal sulcus 563.2 (155.1) 457.5 (111.3) as. 497.7 (109.8) 455.9 (91.5) n.s. Males Females a After Bonfenoni correction for multiple comparisons. may be important for refining our understanding of hemi- spheric specialization. Inferoparietal association cortex, near the boundary of temporal and parietal lobes, helps maintain attention to the outside world (Corbetta and Shulman, 2002), and its damage, particularly on the right side, results in atten- tional impairment (Heilman et al., 2003). Prefrontal cortex found on the lateral aspect of the hemisphere (dorsolateral and ventrolateral) is critical for accessing and activating task- relevant representations found in the posterior association cortices (O'Reilly and Munakata, 2000; Jonides et al., 2008; Van Snellenberg and Wager, 2009). Close neuroanatomical connec- tivity and functional relationship exists between the posterior heteromodal association cortices and lateral prefrontal heter- omodal association cortices (Goldman-Rakic, 1988; Fuster, 2008). By contrast, mesial/orbitomesial prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices (ACCs) are critical for salience-driven deci- sion making guided to a large extent by the organisms's internal states, motivations and needs (Bechara et al., 1998; Koenigs et al., 2007; Botvinick et aL, 1999; Carter et al., 1999). The func- tional implications of the dual lateral versus mesial hetero- modal association cortical asymmetry with opposite and complementary cortical space allocation are intriguing and they await further clarification. A possible relationship between hemispheric differences in heteromodal versus modality- specific cortical space allocation and the differential roles of the two hemispheres in learning was ascertained in the old literature (Goldberg and Costa, 1981), but it clearly requires a re- examination with modem methodology. 4.2. Modality-specific cortical asymmetries We also found hemispheric differences in the modality- specific cortical regional volumes. Areas implicated in visual processing are more extensive in the right than left hemisphere. By contrast, somatosensory cortex, auditory cortex, portions of premotor cortex, and motor cortices controlling oropharyngeal structures are more extensive in the left than right hemisphere. Our findings that the superior temporal gyms, planum temporale, and inferior portion of the motor areas are volumetrically larger in the left than right hemisphere parallel previously reported asymmetries in the planum temperate and frontal operculum (Geschwind and Levitsky, 1968; Galaburda et al., 1978). Luders et al. (2006) re- ported a similar pro-left hemispheric asymmetry in the cortical thickness of anterior temporal-lobe structures. Our finding of pro-right hemispheric differences in the volume of cortex implicated in visual processing parallels the cortical surface differences reported by Lyttelton et al. (2009) and cortical thickness differences reported by Luders et al. (2006). These asymmetries are broadly consistent with the commonly described left hemispheric dominance for language and right hemispheric dominance for visuo-spatial processing in humans. 4.3. Cortical space allocation on the lateral versus mesial aspects of the hemispheres Cortical space allocation on the lateral (convexital) aspect appears to follow a relatively clear pattern. Heteromodal association cortices are more extensively represented in the right than in the left hemisphere. We found this to be true both for the prefrontal and for the inferoparietal cortices. By contrast, modality-specific cortices are more extensively represented in the left than in the right hemisphere. Our data confirmed this for somatosensory cortex, auditory cortex, portions of premotor cortex, and motor cortices controlling oropharyngeal structures. This is consistent with the earlier predictions (Goldberg and Costa, 1981). EFTA00301235 Author's personal copy 208 CORTEX g (2013) 200-2 ID We found that cortical space allocation on the mesial aspect appears to be characterized by a more extensive representation of the orbital and mesial frontal and cingulate cortices in the left than right hemisphere. 4.4. Sex•linked differences Functional lateralization of the brain is present both in females and in males and is controlled by multiple factors (Liu et al., 2009). Examination of sex-linked differences in cortical morphology was not the primary focus of this study and any such differences reported here should be viewed as prelimi- nary and requiring confirmation with larger samples. None- theless, our findings suggest volumetric asymmetry in the cingulate cortex (left larger than right) in males but not in females. The functional implications of this asymmetry is unclear, but it does parallel the sex-linked differences in the effects of lateralized prefrontal lesions on response selection in an intentionally underconstrained, ambiguous perceptual preference tasks devoid of intrinsic "true-false" metric (Goldberg et al., 1994a, 1994b; Goldberg and Podell, 1999). In right-handed females, both left and right frontal lesions shift responses toward extreme dependence on the perceptual context, making them excessively changeable compared to healthy controls. In right-handed males right frontal lesions shift responses toward extreme context dependence, but left frontal lesions — toward extreme context independence characterized by excessively stable responses. These sex-linked differences in the lateralized prefrontal lesion effects on response selection parallel our findings of sex-linked differences in the relative sizes of the left and right ACC: they are symmetric in females and asymmetric in males. ACC plays a role in resolving situations characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity (Krain et al., 2006; Pushkarskaya et al., 2010). Sex-linked differences in the degree of laterali- zation of the frontal-lobe control over response selection in ambiguous, underdetermined situations may be a conse- quence of sex-linked differences in the degree of structural ACC asymmetries. While ACC is not the only structure implicated in decision making under ambiguity — so are the orbitofrontal and mesial frontal areas — the fact that the sex- linked differences in decision making in ambiguous environ- ments parallel the anatomical findings in ACC but not in the other regions may suggest a particularly central role of ACC in resolving ambiguity. 4.5. Limitations and future directions Replication of our findings, particularly as they pertain to sex- linked differences, needs to be conducted with a larger sample. The generalizability of our findings across lifespan is unclear at this time, since changes in morphological hemi- spheric asymmetries with age have been reported (Raz et al., 2004; Shaw et al., 2009). Thus replications in different age groups are important. Further elucidation of the relationship of hemispheric asymmetries described here and neurological/neuropsychi- atric disorders is another promising direction. Several neuro- logical and neuropsychiatric disorders are characterized by asymmetric regional structural or physiological abnormalities, notably schizophrenia (Chance et al., 2008; Schobel et al., 2009; Wolf et al., 2008) and fronto-temporal dementia (Boccardi et al., 2003; Jeong et al., 2005; Kanda et al., 2008; Whitwell et al., 2005). The findings presented in this paper may help shed further light on the nature and implications of such asymmetries in these disorders. Several patterns of hemispheric asymmetries described in this paper are particularly intriguing. These include the dual asymmetry of lateral versus mesial heteromodal association cortices, and the asymmetry of cortical space allocation between heteromodal association and modality specific association cortices on the lateral (convexital) aspects of the two hemispheres. In this paper we presented morphometric findings without any correlated neuropsychological data. Future studies may attempt to correlate the degree of expression of the asymmetries described here in healthy individuals with cognitive variables. Analytic or computational models may also be illumi- nating in understanding complex structure—function rela- tions. The differences in cortical space allocation to heteromodal versus modality-specific cortices can be rela- tively readily represented in formal models. It may be possible to clarify the functional ramifications of the asymmetries in cortical space allocation described in this paper computa- tionally, by modeling them in multilayered neural net archi- tectures and examining the effects of parametric variations within the models on learning (for a more detailed outline of this approach see Goldberg, 2009). In conclusion, despite the prodigious body of work on hemispheric specialization, the riddle is far from solved, and more interdisciplinary work is needed, combining neuro- psychological, neuroimaging, computational, genetic, and clinical approaches into a coordinated research effort. REFERENCES Anderson B, Southern BD, and Powers RE. Anatomic asymmetries of the posterior superior temporal lobes: A postmortem study. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 12(4): 247-254, 1999. Beaton AA. The relation of planum temporale asymmetry and morphology of the corpus callosum to handedness, gender, and dyslexia: A review of the evidence. Brain and Language, 60(2): 255-322, 1997. Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, and Anderson SW. Dissociation of working memory from decision making within the human prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 18(1): 428-437, 1998. Blackmon T, Barr WB, Kuzniecky R, DuBois J, Carlson CE, Quinn BT, et al. Phonetically irregular word pronunciation and cortical thickness in the adult brain. Neurolmage, 51(4): 1453-1458, 2010. Boccardi M, Laakso MP, Bresciani L, Galluzi 5, Geroldi C, Beltnmello A, et aL The Mm pattern of frontal and temporal brain atrophy in fronto-temporal dementia. Neurobiology of Aging, 24(1): 95-103, 2003. Botvinick M, Nystrom LE, Fissel K, Carter CS, and Cohen JD. Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402(6758): 179-181, 1999. Carter CS, Botvinick M, and Cohen JD. The contribution of the anterior cingulate cortex to executive processes in cognition. Reuiews in Neuroscience, 10(1): 49-57, 1999. EFTA00301236 Author's personal copy CORTEX 4.9 (2013) 200-210 209 Chance SA, Casanova MF, Suitela AE, and Crow TJ. Auditory cortex asymmetry, altered minicolumn spacing and absence of ageing effects in schizophrenia. Brain, 131(12): 3178-3192, 2008. Corbetta M and Shulman GL. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3): 201-215, 2002. Crespo-Facorro B, Ftoiz-Santilfiez R, Perez-Iglesias R, Meta I, Rodriguez-Sanchez JM, Tordesillas-Gutierrez D, et aL Sex- specific variation of MR1-based cortical morphometry in adult healthy volunteers: The effect on cognitive functioning. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmaco/ogy & Biological Psychiatry, 35(2): 616-623, 2001. Dale AM, Fischl B, and Sereno MI. Cortical surface-based analysis. I. Segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neurolmage, 9(2): 179-194,1999. Destrieux C, Fischl B, Dale AM, and Halgren E. A sulcal depth- based anatomical parcellation of the cerebral cortex. Neurolmage, 47(51): 5151, 2009. Destrieux C, Fischl B, Dale A, and Halgren E. Automatic parcellation of human cortical gyri and sulci using standard anatomical nomenclature. Neurolmage, 53(1): 1-15, 2010. Draganski B, Gaser C, Busch V, Schuierer G, Bogdahn U, and May A. Neuroplasticity: Changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature, 427(6972): 311-312, 2004. Fischl B and Dale AM. Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic resonance images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(20): 11050-11055, 2000. Fischl B, Sereno MI, Tootell RB, and Dale AM. High-resolution intersubject avenging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface. Human Brain Mapping, 8(4): 272-284, 1999. Fischl B, Liu A, and Dale AM. Automated manifold surgery: Constructing geometrically accurate and topologically correct models of the human cerebral cortex. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 20(1): 70-80, 2001. Fischl B, van der Kouwe A, Destrieux C, Halgren E, Segonne F, Salat DH, et al. Automatically parcellating the human cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 14(1): 11-22, 2004. Fleming SM, Weil RS, Nagy Z, Dolan KT, and Rees G. Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science, 329(5998): 1514-1543, 2010. Fornito A, Yucel M, Wood 5, Stuart GW, Buchanan JA, Proffitt T, et al. Individual differences in anterior cingulate/ paracingulate morphology are related to executive functions in healthy males. Cerebral Cortex, 14(4): 424-431, 2004. Foundas AL, Leonard CM, Gilmore R, Fennel E, and Heilman KM. Plenum temporal asymmetry and language dominance. Neuropsychologia, 32(10): 1225-1231, 1994. Foundas AL, Leonard CM, and Heilman KM. Morphologic cerebral asymmetries and handedness: The pars triangularis and plenum temporale. Archives of Neurology, 52(5): 501-508, 1995. Fuster JM. The Prefrontal Cortex. 4th ed. NY: Academic Press, 2008. Galaburda AM, LeMay M, Kemper TL, and Geschwind N. Right-leR asymmetries in the brain. Science, 199(4331): 852-856, 1978. Geschwind N and Levitsky W. Human brain: Left-right asymmetries in temporal speech region. Science, 161(837): 186-187,1968. Gold JM, Berman KF, Randolph C, Goldberg TE, and Weinberger DR. PET validation of a novel prefrontal task Delayed response alteration. Neuropsychology, 10(1): 3-10, 1996. Goldberg E. The New Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes in a Complex World. NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Goldberg E and Costa LD. Hemisphere differences in the acquisition and use of descriptive systems. Brain and Language, 14(1): 144-173, 1981. Goldberg E and Podell K. Adaptive versus veridical decision making and the frontal lobes. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3): 364-377, 1999. Goldberg E, Hamer R, Lovell M, Podell K, and Riggio S. Cognitive bias, functional cortical geometry, and the frontal lobes: Laterality, sex, and handedness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(3): 276-296, 1994a. Goldberg E, Podell K, and Lovell M. Lateralization of frontal lobe functions and cognitive novelty. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 6(4): 371-378, 1994b. Goldman-Rakic PS. Topography of cognition: Parallel distributed networks in primate association cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 11: 137-156, 1988. Good CD, Johnsrude I, Ashburner J, Henson RNA, Friston ICJ, and Fnckowiak RSJ. Cerebral asymmetry and the effects of sex and handedness on brain structure: A voxel-based morphometric analysis of 465 normal adult human brains. Neurolmage, 14(3): 685-700, 2001. Habib M, Gayraud D, Oliva A, Regis J, Salamon G, and Khalil R. Effects of handedness and sex on the morphology of the corpus callosum: A study with brain magnetic resonance imaging. Brain and Cognition, 16(1): 41-61, 1991. Heilman ICH, Watson RT, and Valenstein E. Neglect and related disorders. In Heilman KH and Valenstein E (Eds), Clinical Neuropsychology. 4th ed. NY: Oxford University Press, 2003: 296-346. Henson R, Shallice T, and Dolan R. Neuroimaging evidence for dissociable forms of repetition priming. Science, 287(5456): 1269-1272, 2000. Huster Efl, Westerhausen R, Kreuder F, Schwieger E, and Wittling W. Morphologic asymmetry of the human anterior cingulate cortex. Neurolmage, 34(3): 888-895, 2007. Jeong Y, Cho SS, Park JM, Kang 5), Lee JS, Kang E, et al. 18F-FDG PET findings in frontotemporal dementia: An SPM analysis of 29 patients. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 46(2): 233-239, 2005. Jonides J, Lewis RL, Nee DE, Lustig CA, Berman MG, and Moore KS. The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59: 193-224, 2008. Kamiya Y, Aihara M, Osada M, Ono C, Hatakeyama K, Kanemura H, et al. Electrophysiological study of lateralization in the frontal lobes (in Japanese). Japanese Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(3): 188-191, 2002. Kanda T, Ishii K, Uemura T, Miyamoto N, Yoshikawa T, Kono AK, et al. Comparison of grey matter and metabolic reductions in frontotemporal dementia using FDG-PET and voxel-based morphometric MR studies. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 35(12): 2227-2234, 2008. Koenigs M, Young L, Adolphs R, Trend D, Cushman F, Hauser M, et al. Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, 446(7138): 908-911, 2007. Krain AL, Wilson AM, Arbuckle R, Castellanos FX, and Milham MP. Distinct neural mechanisms of risk and ambiguity: A meta- analysis of decision-making. Neurolmage, 32(1): 477-484, 2006. LeMay M and Culebns A. Human brain - morphological differences in the hemispheres demonstrable by carotid arteriography. New England Journal of Medicine, 287(4): 168-170, 1972. Liu H, Stufflebeam SM, Sepulcre 3, Hedden T, and Buckner a. Evidence from intrinsic activity that asymmetry of the human brain is controlled by multiple factors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(48): 20499-20503, 2009. Luders E, Nan KL, Thompson PM, Rex DE, Jancke L, and Toga AW. Hemispheric asymmetries in cortical thickness. Cerebral Cortex, 16(8): 1232-1238, 2006. Luders E, Gaser C, Nan KL, and Toga AW. Why sex matters: Brain size independent differences in gray matter distributions EFTA00301237 :,Author's personal copy 210 CORTEX 49 (2013) 200-2 IC/ between men and women. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(45): 14265-14270,2009. Lyttelton OC, Karama 5, Ad-Dab'bagh Y, Zatorre RJ, Carbonell F, Worsley K, et at Positional and surface area asymmetry of the human cerebral cortex. Neurolmage, 46(4): 895-903, 2009. Maguire EA, Gadian DG, Johnstrude IS, Good CD, Ashbumer J, Frakowiak RS, et al. Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(8): 4398-4403, 2000. Nagata SI, Uchimura K, Hirakawa W, and Kuratsu JI. Method for quantitatively evaluating the lateralization of linguistic function using functional MR imaging. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 22(5): 985-991, 2001. Nan KL, Bilder RM, Luders E, Thompson PM, Woods RP, Robinson D, et al. Asymmetries of cortical shape: Effects of handedness, sex and schizophrenia. Neurolmage, 34(3): 939-948, 2007. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1): 97-113, 1971. O'Reilly RC and Munakata Y. Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000. Penhune VB, Zatorre RJ, MacDonald JD, and Evans AC. Interhemispheric anatomical differences in human primary auditory cortex: Probabilistic mapping and volume measurement from magnetic resonance scans. Cerebral Cortex, 6(5): 661-672, 1996. Pushkarskaya H, Liu X, Smithson M, and Joseph JE. Beyond risk and ambiguity: Deciding under ignorance. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(3): 382-391, 2010. Raz N, Gunning-Dixon F, Head D, Rodrigue KM, Williamson A, and Acker JD. Aging, sexual dimorphism, and hemispheric asymmetry of the cerebral cortex: Replicability of regional differences in volume. Neurobiology of Ag mg, 25(3):377-396, 2004. Schneider P, Scherg M, Dosch HG, Specht HJ, Gutschalk A, and Rupp A. Morphology of Heschl's gyrus reflects enhanced activation in the auditory cortex of musicians. Nature Neuroscience, 5(7): 688-694, 2002. Schobel SA, Kelly MA, Corcoran CM, Van Heertum K, Seckinger R, Goetz R, et al. Anterior hippocampal and orbitofrontal cortical structural brain abnormalities in association with cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 114(1-3): 110-118, 2009. Shadmehr R and Holcomb HH. Neural correlates of motor memory consolidation. Science, 277(5327): 821-825, 1997. Shaw P, Lalonde F, Lepage C, Rabin C, Eckstrand K, Sharp W, et al. Development of cortical asymmetry in typically developing children and its disruption in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66(8): 888-896, 2009. Takao H, Abe O, Yarnasue H, Aoki 5, Sasaki H, Kasai K, et al. Gray and white matter asymmetries in healthy individuals aged 21-29 years: A voxel-based morphometry and diffusion tensor imaging study. Human Brain Mapping, 32(10): 1762-1773, 2011. Vallortigara G. Comparative neuropsychology of the dual brain: A stroll through animals' left and right perceptual worlds. Brain and Language, 73(2): 189-219, 2000. Vallortigara G and Rogers y. Survival with an asymmetrical brain: Advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateralization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4): 575-633, 2005. Vallortigara G, Rogers p, and Bisazza A. Possible evolutionary origins of cognitive brain lateralization. Brain Research Reviews, 30(2): 164-175, 1999. Van Snellenberg JX and Wager T. Cognitive and motivational functions of the human prefrontal cortex. In Christensen A-L, Goldberg E, and Bougakov D (Eds), Luria's Legacy in the 22st Century. NY: Oxford University Press, 2009: 30-61. Watkins KE, Paus T, Lerch JP, Zijdenbos A, Collins DL, Neelin P, et al. Structural asymmetries in the human brain: A voxel- based statistical analysis of 142 MRI scans. Cerebral Cortex, 11(9): 868-877, 2001. Whitwell JL, Sampson EL, Watt HC, Harvey RJ, Rossor MN, and Fox NC. A volumetric magnetic resonance imaging study of the amygdala in frontotemporal lobar degeneration and Alzheimer's disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 20(4): 238-244, 2005. Witelson SF. Hand and sex differences in the isthmus and genu of the human corpus callosum. Brain, 112(3): 799-835, 1989. Wolf RC, Hose A, Frasch K, Walter H, and Vasic N. Volumetric abnormalities associated with cognitive deficits in patients with schizophrenia. European Psychiatry, 23(8): 541-548, 2008. Yakovlev PI. A proposed definition of the limbic system. In Hackman CH (Ed), Limbic System Mechanisms and Autonomic Function. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1972: 241-283. Yakovlev PI and Rakic P. Patterns of decussation of bulbar pyramids and distribution of pyramidal tracts on two sides of the spinal cord. Transactions of the American Neurological Association, 91: 366-367, 1966. EFTA00301238