A Tale of Two Hemispheres

by Riya Raina

art by Jennifer (Ruiqi) Wang

 A participant sits in a lab, staring at a small “+” in the center of a screen. A picture of a key flashes just to the left of that point. It disappears almost immediately. When the participant is asked to say what they saw, they can’t name it. But when asked to reach behind a screen with their left hand and pick the matching object, they grab a key right away. When asked to draw what they saw with their left hand, they sketch a key with ease [1, 2, 3].

In that moment, the same person can simultaneously seem to both know and not know what was on the screen. Their left hand “knows” the key, but they are unable to communicate this knowledge through speech. This simple experiment captures the strange world of split-brain research, a field that examines what happens when the corpus callosum, the major connection between the two hemispheres of the brain, is surgically cut [4].

Split-brain surgery, or corpus callosotomy, is usually performed as a last resort for severe epilepsy that does not respond to medication [3]. Surgeons cut some or all of the corpus callosum, the thick bundle of nerve fibers connecting the two hemispheres of the brain, to prevent seizures from spreading from one hemisphere to the other. The classic experiments of Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga in the 1960s and 1970s observed these rare patients in a kind of natural experiment on the structure of consciousness [2,4]. For decades, philosophers and neuroscientists have argued about what these patients show: do they reveal two minds inside one skull, or one mind with a very strange way of accessing information [1,3,5].

What the classic experiments really show To understand the debate, it helps to look more closely at how the brain is wired. Visual information from the left visual field is sent  to the right hemisphere, while information from the right visual field is transmitted  to the left hemisphere [6]. In most people, the left hemisphere houses key language areas that support speech [7]. In an intact brain, the corpus callosum allows information to travel between the hemispheres, sharing signals regarding a person's senses, thoughts, and emotions [8]. 

In split-brain patients, however, that bridge is severed. If a word or picture is flashed only to the right visual field (and thus received by the left hemisphere), most patients can name it without difficulty [1-3]. When the same stimulus is flashed only to the left visual field (and thus the right hemisphere), speech often fails, but the left hand (controlled by the right hemisphere) can still pick up, point to, or draw the correct object [1-3]. The knowledge is there, but it cannot reach the speech system.

This pattern is the core finding: information can be known without ever reaching the linguistic system, and therefore cannot  be verbally reported [2,4]. It is not that the brain does not have this information stored. Instead, a particular channel, speech, lacks access to what another system “knows”. Sperry and Gazzaniga’s original experiments, like the example involving the key, made this misunderstanding clear in a controlled way [2,4].

Corpus callosotomies are not identical across patients [4]. Sometimes only the rostral portion, or front part of the corpus callosum is cut, sometimes the splenium (the thick region connecting the occipital lobes of the brain) in the front of the brain, or back part is also severed. Some residual connections that transmit limited sensory or motor information between the hemispheres may remain through other pathways, such as the anterior and posterior commissures or subcortical brainstem circuits. Because of this, some patients show dramatic, textbook dissociations, while others show subtler or inconsistent effects [1]. Despite this variability, two clusters of findings appear again and again.

First, language is typically left-lateralized, meaning that language processing is mainly handled by specialized networks in the left hemisphere rather than in both sides of the brain. Right-field stimuli (left hemisphere) can be named and left-field stimuli (right hemisphere) usually cannot be named but can guide the left hand [1,2]. Second, the two hands can sometimes act against each other. In one classic task, a circle is flashed to the left visual field and a square to the right visual field. When asked to draw what was seen with both hands simultaneously, patients draw a circle with the left hand and a square with the right hand. Under even more specific conditions, especially when two hands are given conflicting tasks, one hand may try to undo what the other just did, for example, buttoning a shirt with one hand while the other unbuttons it [1,2].

Outside the lab, though, these conflicts are rare [1, 9]. Everyday tasks like making coffee, walking across a room, or hugging a friend, usually have both hands working toward the same goal, so they face no challenges executing them. In normal life, split-brain patients plan their days, hold conversations, and move through the world as apparently unified agents [1, 9].

The left hemisphere as "interpreter"

The oddest split-brain findings come from tasks that probe not just perception and action, but explanation [1, 2]. In a famous experiment, a picture of a chicken claw is presented to the right visual field (left hemisphere), and a snowy driveway is presented to the left visual field (right hemisphere). Then several pictures are spread on a table: a chicken, a shovel, a snow scene, and unrelated items.

The right hand (left hemisphere) points to the chicken, which matches the chicken claw. The left hand (right hemisphere) points to the shovel, which matches the snowy driveway. So far, so good. Each hand picks the item that makes sense given what its hemisphere saw. The strange part comes next. When the experimenter asks, “Why did you point to the shovel?” the patient, speaking from the left hemisphere, which didn’t receive  the snow as visual input from the right visual field, does not say, “I have no idea.” Instead, they say something like, “You need a shovel to clean out the chicken coop” [1, 2].

Another task flashes the command “WALK” to the left visual field, so only the right hemisphere perceives it [2, 10]. The patient stands up and walks toward the door. When asked, “Why are you leaving?” the left hemisphere, which never perceived the command, replies, “I’m going to get a drink of water,” or some other plausible reason [2,10].

Across many such experiments, one pattern repeats: when the left hemisphere lacks crucial information about why the body just acted, it still supplies an explanation. The patient doesn’t say, “I don’t know” or “Some part of me decided without telling me.” Instead, the left hemisphere generates a story that fits the fragment of the situation it has access to.

Gazzaniga labeled this function the “interpreter” [2,3]. In this picture, one major role of the left hemisphere is not just to control language, but to combine perception, memory, and action into a coherent narrative. That narrative can be inaccurate, but it strives for coherence over accuracy. In split-brain patients, the missing data is obvious. In the rest of us, something similar may happen constantly, just less dramatically and noticeably [2,3].

Consciousness as compression

One useful way that some think about the interpreter is as a compression system, or a mechanism that condenses many separate pieces of information into a simplified narrative. At any moment, the brain is running many processes in parallel: sensory processing in multiple pathways, motor plans for different body parts, emotional reactions, habits, long-term projects, and more [11]. All of that activity has to be compressed into a few simpler streams we can actually report: a sentence, a decision, a justification, maybe a feeling we can name [11].

In this viewpoint, “consciousness” is not a single object located in one spot, but the output of mechanisms that filter and merge many signals into a simpler channel like inner speech or reportable thought [1, 3, 12]. Some signals reach that channel and become part of our self-description. Other signals influence behavior without ever being verbally acknowledged.

In split-brain experiments, the compression system is doing what it always does: taking what’s available to the reporting system and creating the most coherent story out of it. But, the experimenter has deliberately arranged for key information to be trapped in the other hemisphere. The right hemisphere sees “WALK” and triggers action. When the left hemisphere is asked to explain, it compresses what it can: bodily movement, the lab context, maybe a slight thirst, plus the social demand to offer a reason. The resulting story of “I’m going to get a drink” is not a lie in the usual moral sense. It is the brain’s best guess under limited information.

If this is right, then split-brain cases do not show a bizarre anomaly unique to individuals who have undergone a corpus callosotomy. They make clear an everyday feature of human minds: our tendency to fill in gaps, smooth over conflicts, and protect a sense of being a coherent “I”.  Ethically, this can be unsettling. It suggests that we know less about the true causes of our actions than we confidently claim. This idea also suggests that respecting a person’s agency does not mean trusting every story they tell about themselves, including our own. It means taking those stories seriously while recognizing that they are products of an interpretive system.

One mind or two?

These scientific findings have led to two main models of split-brain consciousness. In the “two minds” perspective, each hemisphere supports its own stream of consciousness [5,13]. When the corpus callosum is cut, the surgery does not create two minds. It simply reveals that there were always two distinct but coordinated subjects whose communication has now been disrupted [5,13]. Lab tasks that cause conflicting responses from the two hands are then taken as direct evidence of co-present, partially independent agents. Here, the shovel choice and the “going for a drink” explanation come from different conscious subjects who simply lack a shared workspace.

In the “single mind with partitioned input” view, there is still one subject of experience, but that subject has uneven access to information [1,12]. The mismatched behaviors reflect informational bottlenecks where some perceptions and intentions cannot reach the systems responsible for speech or unified action, rather than a split in the self. This emphasizes how smoothly split-brain patients function in everyday life, and how often they can find ways to “cross-cue”, using head movements, small vocalizations, or other strategies to share information between hemispheres [1,12].

Pinto and colleagues capture this compromise with the phrase “divided perception, undivided consciousness” [12]. In their view, the visual systems are divided in a way that shows up under carefully controlled conditions, but the broader structure of experience (memory, long-term goals, sense of self) remains unified enough to count as one mind [12].

Which model is most accurate? Purely descriptively, each captures something important. The “two-minds” view explains the laboratory evidence of conflicting responses. The one-mind view does justice to the patients’ own reports and the relative normality of their daily lives. My own judgment is that the most accurate answer is a hybrid between the two. Under narrow, unusual conditions that pit the hemispheres against each other, agency can temporarily fragment. But over time, patients maintain a coherent sense of self, using all the cues and residual pathways they can. The unity of the person is not given by perfect, moment-to-moment integration of information. It is built by stable patterns of memory, commitment, and social recognition.

Ethical stakes: personhood, responsibility, and respect

Once we frame the issue this way, the ethical questions become more urgent. If, in some situations, a split-brain patient’s hands “disagree,” is that person one moral agent or two? If one hemisphere initiates an action and the other supplies a false story after the fact, who is responsible? And how should researchers, clinicians, and the public talk about these people without turning them into curiosities?

First, personhood. Moral and legal responsibility usually assume that each human is a reasonably unified agent: someone who can form intentions, understand reasons, remember commitments, and anticipate consequences [5]. Split-brain data might tempt us to say: “There are really two people here, so maybe each hemisphere should be treated as a separate person with separate rights and responsibilities” [13]. But if we look beyond the lab, that picture feels inaccurate. Patients sign forms, make life choices, raise families, pursue hobbies, and relate to others as single individuals, not as pairs. Their friends and caregivers interact with one person. They themselves describe their experiences in the first person singular.

Ethically, it seems more respectful to start from this lived unity. The default stance should be to treat split-brain patients as single agents, unless there is specific, strong evidence that they cannot meet basic thresholds for informed consent or responsibility in certain contexts. Instead of asking, “How many people are really in there?” we might ask, “What does this person need to maintain and express the unity they already experience?” That could include accommodations in testing, counseling that takes their situation seriously, and careful explanations of what surgery can and cannot change [1, 12].

Second, responsibility. The interpreter findings raise a disturbing possibility: if our brains regularly fill in gaps to create smooth explanations, can we ever be fully responsible for what we do? If a patient says, “I walked to the door to get a drink,” but the real causal trigger was an unseen command, are they lying, or just narrating the only story available to them? Here, split-brain cases again exaggerate a general feature of human psychology. Confabulation, telling a sincere but false story about one’s own actions or attitudes, is common not only in neurology clinics but in everyday life [5, 13].

This suggests that moral responsibility should not rest on perfect knowledge of the self. Instead, responsibility should track whether an agent can, over time, respond to reasons, revise their behavior when given new information, and participate in shared norms. Split-brain patients generally can do this [1,13]. They can learn about their condition, understand that some of their reactions are unusual, and work around their limitations. Holding them responsible within reasonable bounds, while making allowances for genuine deficits, respects them as agents rather than treating them as helpless victims of their brains [1,9].

Third, research ethics and narrative framing. The way scientists and journalists describe split-brain patients has real consequences. Phrases like “two minds in one head” are attention-grabbing, but they can also be dehumanizing, especially when stripped of nuance. They risk turning patients into metaphors for philosophical problems instead of people living with a serious medical condition. Ethically responsible research and reporting should emphasize that these are individuals who consented to surgery to control devastating seizures, and who often experience the operation as a relief, not as a catastrophe [1, 3].

What split-brain teaches about all of us

In the end, split-brain patients are not just edge cases for theorists. They are mirrors that show, in exaggerated form, how much work our brains do to keep a coherent story and logic going. They reveal that the unity of consciousness is not a simple anatomical fact guaranteed by a single structure like the corpus callosum. Instead, unity is an achievement: a dynamic pattern of integration maintained by memory, attention, narrative, and social recognition [2, 12]. The split brain does not destroy the self, it reveals how the self is built in the first place.

REFERENCES:

1. Bayne, T. (2008). The Unity of Consciousness and the Split-Brain Syndrome. Journal of Philosophy, 105(6), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2008105638

2. de Haan, E. H. F., Corballis, P. M., Hillyard, S. A., Marzi, C. A., Seth, A., Lamme, V. A. F., Volz, L., Fabri, M., Schechter, E., Bayne, T., Corballis, M., & Pinto, Y. (2020). Split-Brain: What We Know Now and Why This is Important for Understanding Consciousness. Neuropsychology Review, 30(2), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-020-09439-3

3. Dehaene, S., & Naccache, L. (2001). Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: Basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition, 79(1–2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00123-2

4. Downey, A. (2018). Split-brain syndrome and extended perceptual consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 787–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-017-9550-y

5. Ferguson, S. M., Rayport, M., & Corrie, W. S. (1985). Neuropsychiatric Observations on Behavioral Consequences of Corpus Callosum Section for Seizure Control. In A. G. Reeves (Ed.), Epilepsy and the Corpus Callosum (pp. 501–514). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2419-5_28

6. Fugelsang, J. A., Roser, M. E., Corballis, P. M., Gazzaniga, M. S., & Dunbar, K. N. (2005). Brain mechanisms underlying perceptual causality. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.001

7.  Gazzaniga, M. S. (1967). The split brain in man. Scientific American, 217(2), 24–29.Scientific American+2Scribd+2

8. Gazzaniga, M. S. (1995). Principles of human brain organization derived from split-brain studies. Neuron, 14(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0896-6273(95)90280-5

9. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 123 ( Pt 7), 1293–1326. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.7.1293

10. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). Forty-five years of split-brain research and still going strong. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(8), 653–659. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1723

11. Lausberg, H., Kita, S., Zaidel, E., & Ptito, A. (2003). Split-brain patients neglect left personal space during right-handed gestures. Neuropsychologia, 41(10), 1317–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(03)00047-2

12. Meador, K. J., Loring, D. W., & Sathian, K. (2017). Consciousness post corpus callosotomy. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 140(7), e38. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awx106

13. Pinto, Y., Neville, D. A., Otten, M., Corballis, P. M., Lamme, V. A. F., de Haan, E. H. F., Foschi, N., & Fabri, M. (2017). Split brain: Divided perception but undivided consciousness. Brain, 140(5), 1231–1237. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww358