{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02022058823529412, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3654970760233915, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Role of the forebrain commissures in bihemispheric mnemonic integration in macaques

A serial probe recognition task was used to examine the interhemispheric exchange of visual data in macaques. Each block of trials began with the memorization of one to six visual target images. The monkeys then had to determine, in tests that followed immediately, whether probe images were or were not members of the learned target set. Previous work with both humans and macaques has shown that the time required for the evaluation of probes generally increases, while response accuracy decreases, as a function of the number of targets, the “memory load”. By testing animals with bisected optic chiasm, it was possible to direct visual information to only one hemisphere at a time, simply by occluding the opposite eye. In this fashion, the quality of intrahemispheric evaluations (in which a monocular probe was a match for a target previously viewed through the same eye) was compared with that of interhemispheric evaluations (in which a probe was a match for a target previously designated through the opposite eye). A key question was whether division of the target list between the hemispheres modified the relationships between reaction time, response accuracy, and memory load. Provided that either the anterior commissure or the splenium of the corpus callosum was intact, interhemispheric processing was only subtly less efficient than intrahemispheric processing. The ability to perform interhemispheric evaluations was selectively and completely disrupted if all forebrain commissural fibers were transected. In this latter split-brain condition, the time required for probe evaluations was, as expected, determined solely by the number of target items memorized by the probed hemisphere. Accuracy, however, was always a function of the total memory load, regardless of the distribution of targets between the hemispheres. This implies, first, that accuracy and latency do not reflect identical mnemonic factors, as frequently held, and second, that in mnemonic processing, the two hemispheres draw upon a unified, shared resource, probably allocated by the intact brainstem.