TERENCE HINES

The Myth of Right Hemisphere Creativity

Ifthe article by Hendren (1989) in this journal is any indication, the myth linking thefunctions of right hemisphere to creativity is stillalive, at least in some circles. Accordingto that myth, the cognitive processes supported by the left and right hemispheres of thehuman brain are greatly being, somehow, "in" the right hemisphere, along with suchother typesof processes as "intuition." Thus Edwards (1979) has argued that trainingthe right hemisphere willimproveartistic abilities. In this mythical model of hemispherefunction, the left hemisphere is seen as the location of rational, logical and scientificthought In his paper Hendren (1989) argues that the creative potential of the righthemisphere can be accessed by teaching children sign language. This paper willexamine the evidence on the alleged relationship between the two hemispheres andcreative cognitive processes. Another question raised by Hendren's (1989) article, thatof whether or not sign language production is actually a right hemisphere function, willbe addressed after the general question of creativity in regard to the hemispheres isdiscussed.

On a logical level alone, the claim that the right hemisphere is the sole possessor ofcreative and artistic abilities, while the left hemisphere is in sole possession of logicaland scientific abilities and modes of thought, can be rejected. To contend that creativityand art are "in" one hemisphere while science and rationality are "in" the other, is tocontend that Beethoven would have been just as great a composer and TItian just asgreat a painter had their left hemispheres been removed. This is clearly false. Theassignment of art to one and science to the other hemisphere also, in effect, requiresthat there be no creative aspect to scienceand no logical aspect to artistic creation.This,too, is clearly false and such a position would be endorsed only by someone woefullyignorant of both scientific and artistic processes.

At the empirical level there is considerable data that bear on the relationship betweenhemispheric function. and creative abilities. This data comes from studies of bothnormal individualsand individuals who have suffered from brain damage. In the studyofthe effects of brain damage on creativity, attempts are made to find individuals who,before they sustained brain damage, had- a high level of creative output One thenexamines them foHowing their neurological damage and ascertains whether thedamage has impaired their creative abilities. If the damage is to the left hemispherethen, according to the right hemisphere creativitymyth, there should be no impairmentof creativity. However, damage to the right hemisphere should impair creativity,presumably regardless of the specific type of creativity (music, drawing, writing)involved.

223

Musical ability and creativity in music are often mentioned as examples of functionsthat are "in" the right hemisphere (Zdenek, 1983). In fact, musical ability and creativityare complex amalgams of numerous different specific abilities and processes(Deutsch, 1982). Some of these are performed more readily by the left hemisphere,some more readily by the right hemisphere. For example, Robinson and Solomon(1974) showed that rhythm, certainly an integral part of music, is processed better bythe left than by the right hemisphere. In a study of a brain damaged violinist, Wertheimand Botex (1961) found that the patient had lost his ability for perfect pitch, an abilitythat would probably be considered "holistic" and, therefore, assigned to the righthemisphere by the proponents of hemisphere mythology. In fact, the patient's lesionwas in the left hemisphere. He had also lost his ability to read and transcribe music andevidenced problems in noting changes in tempo and chord structure.

Sidtis (1984) has carried out a series of studies on hemispheric differences in theprocessing of musical stimuli in both normal, callosal sectioned and brain damagedpatients. Using a dichotoic listening paradigm, normal subjects showed greater righthemisphere processing of auditory stimuli as the complexity of the stimuli increased.Thus, there was no difference between the hemispheres when pure tones werepresented, but as the tones were made more complex by adding the harmonics of thefundamental frequency, a right hemisphere advantage emerged (Sidtis, 1980). Sidtisand Gazzaniga (1981) found further support for a right hemisphere superiority incomplex pitch perception in their study of patients who had had the corpus callosumsurgically sectioned for the treatment of epilepsy. The right hemisphere was muchbetter than the left at makingjudgments about complex pitch while the left hemispherewas better than the right at judgments of speech sounds. Anally, right hemisphere

,strokes disrupt the ability to make judgments about complex pitches much more thando left hemisphere strokes (Sidtis and Volpe, 1981).

Studies ofbrain damaged composers have found thatdamage to either hemispherecan result in a loss of what might be considered creative ability in the musical domain.Gardner and Winner (1981) have reviewed several cases. Maurice Ravel's lefthemisphere tumor had the effect that "he was never able to write or compose anotherpiece" (Gardner & Winner, 1981, p. 370).

Shebalin, a 20th Century Russian composer, suffered a left hemisphere stroke thatresulted in no impairment of his abilities as a composer. An unnamed Americancomposer suffered a left hemisphere lesion that resulted in a temporary impairment inhis ability to compose. In another case, another unnamed composer suffered a righthemisphere stroke and, afterwards, was still able to compose, but the compositionswere judged as less "inspired". The results of these studies of the effects of braindamage on musical creativity show that creativity can be impaired by either left or righthemisphere lesions and that lesions in both the left and right hemispheres can in somecases, have little effect on musical creativity. Thus, it is incorrect to claim that musicalcreativity is "in" one hemisphere or the other. In terms of the cognitive processes thatunderlie musical creativity and musical abilities, the research shows that the specifictypes of music-related processes carried out by the left and right hemisphere differ

224

(Marin, 1982). This being the case, both hemispheres are involved in musical abilityandcreativity.

Research on the effects of left and right brain damage on creativity in non-musicalareas also refutes the "creativity is in the right hemisphere" myth. Gardner (1982)discusses the effects of right and left brain damage on the abilities of painters. Damageto either hemisphere produces impairments, but the impairments are of a differentcharacter. Left hemisphere lesions produce a simplification ofdrawings. In at least onecase, that of Anton Raderscheidt, a German 20th Century painter, right hemispheredamage led to the painter neglecting the left side of the canvas, at least in the year or sofollowing his stroke. Studies of the graphic abilities of non-artists who have suffered leftor right hemisphere show different patterns of impairment depending upon whichhemisphere is damaged. Patients with left hemisphere lesions generally produceddrawings that are impoverished in terms of detail. Right hemisphere patients producedrawings in which the details may be present, but they are arranged in a bizarre andoften incoherent fashion (Springer & Deutsch, 1989). Thus, both hemispheres playimportant roles in normal drawing abilities.

As far as creativity in the field of writing is concerned, here the finding is that lefthemisphere damage results in much more impairment in creative abilities than doesright hemisphere damage (Gardner, 1982). If creativity were "in" the right hemisphere,it should be right hemisphere damage, not left hemisphere damage, that results in thegreatest impairment of creativity in writing.

The overall pattern that emerges from the study of the effects of brain damage oncreative behavior should nowbe clear. Almostany type ofcreative behaviorwill drawoncognitive processes some of which are carried out better by the left and some by theright hemispheres. To the extent that the processes required for a particular type ofcreative behavior are executed better by one of the two hemispheres, then damage tothat hemisphere will result in greater impairment. This seems to be especially the casewith creative writing, a highly language related ability. Since language is stronglylocalized in the left hemisphere, left hemisphere damage is much more injurious tocreativity in writing. It appears that musical abilities draw on cognitive processes whichshowa slight favoring of the right hemisphere and so righthemisphere damage tends toproduce a slightly greater impairment of musical creativity than does left hemispheredamage, although left hemisphere damage can also produce impairments.

Creativity in painting (and perhaps sculpture, although that remains to be studied)seems to be impaired about equally by left or right hemisphere damage, although thesmall numbers of cases that have been studied in all these areas certainly leaves ampleroom for further research.

In addition to arguing, at least implicitly, that creativity in a right hemisphere function,Hendren (1989) also suggests that sign language is an activity controlled by the righthemisphere. He states that its ..major components (pantomime, gesturing, facialexpressions, and symbolizing) are generallyaccepted as right brain functions" (p. 116).Even on this point, one mustdisagree about the claim that"symbolizing" is a right brainfunction. For one thing, it's not at all clear just what Hendren means by this term.

225

Whateverhe means, it mustsurelybe the case that language, a lefthemisphere functionin large part, is the example par-excellence of"symbolizing". What elsewould one callthe ability to transform a group of black squiggles on a white background into aninternal representation ("symbol") of, say, a swanor an abstract concept like "justice?"

At a more specific and empirical level, the claim that sign language is a righthemisphere function is simply wrong. Poizner, Klima, and BeIlugi (1987) have studiedindividuals who sign and who have suffered brain damage. The results are clear.Damage in the traditional language areas of the left hemisphere produces seriousimpairments in one's abilityto sign. Right hemisphere damage does not produce suchimpairments. Of considerable additional interest is the finding that damage to differentparts of the language areas of the left hemisphere produce symptoms in sign similar tothose of expressive and receptive aphasia in spoken language. The specific neuralsubstraits for different aspects of language function are in control of those functionswhether language is expressed vocally or in sign.

In summary, Hendren's (1989) paper represents an uncritical acceptance of naivepseudoscientific beliefs about the brian and brain function. Claims that creativity is "in"one or the other hemisphere bear a striking resemblance to the 18th and 19th Centurypseudoscience of phrenology (see Davies, 1955, for a history of phrenology) in whichclaims, unsubstantiated by an empirical evidence, were made that this or that aspect ofbehavior was located in a specific brain area. Thus, for example, "benevolence" wassaid to be located in the posterior frontal lobe and "friendship" in the occipital lobe. Thepaper also represents a failure to do checking of the relevant research literature. Hadsuch a checkbeen done, the Poizner, Klima, and Bellugi (1987) bookwould have beenfound and that would have set to rest the idea that sign is a right hemisphere function.

A€fEAENCES DAVIES, J. Phrenology: Fad andscience. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversityPress,1955.

DEUTSCH, D. (ed.) Psychology ofmusic. NYC: Academic Press, 1982-EDWARDS, B. Drawing on the right side ofyour brair), Los Angeles, CA: Tarcher, 1979.GARDNER, H.M mind and brain. NYC: Basic Books; 1982.GARDNER, H. & WINNER, E. Artistry and aphasia. In Sarno, M. (ed.), Acquired aphasia. NYC: Academic

Press,361·384,1981.HENDREN, G.Using sign language to access right brain communication: A tool for teachers. Journal of

Creative Behavior, 23, 116-120, 1989.MARIN,O. Neurologicalaspects of musicalperceptionandperformance. InDeutsch,D.(ed.), Psychologyof

music. NYC: AcademicPress,453477, 1982.POIZNER, H., KUMA, E., s BEllllGl, <J. What thehandsreveal about thebrain.Cambridge. MA: MITPress,

1987.ROBINSON, G.& SOLOMON, D. Rhythmis processed by thespeechhemisphere. JournalofExperimental

Psychology, 102,508-511,1974.S1D115,J. On thenature ofcorticalfunctionunderlying righthemisphereauditoryfunction.Neuropsychologia,

18,321·330. 1980.51D115,J. Music,pitch,perception,andthemechanismof corticalhearing.InGazzaniga, M.(ed.), Handbook

ofcognitive neuroscience. NYC: Plenum, 91·114, 1984.

226

510115, J. & GAZZANIGA, It\. Complexpitch perception after callosalsection: Furtherevidence for a righthemisphere mechanism. JournaloftheAc:ousticaJSociety ofAmerica, 69, 5119. 1981.

S1DTIS, J. & VOlPE, B. Right hemisphereIateraIization c:J complex pitch perception: A possible basisforamusia.Neurology. 31, 101. 1981.

SPRINGER, S. s DELITSCH, G.Leftbtain, right btain, 3rd edition. NYC: Freeman, 1989.WERTIfE:lM, N.& BOTEZ, M. Receptive amusia:Adinical analysis. Brain, 84,19-30,1961.ZOENEK, M. The rightlmJin experience NYC: McGraw-Hill, 1983.

Terence Hines, Pace UniYersity. Psychology Dept.,Pleasantville, NY1057()'2799.

227