Split-brain research used to support the idea of lateralisation was well controlled.
This means the methodology can be praised for using highly standardised procedures conducted in a controlled environment to control possible confounding variables.
This is positive as it ensured the research measured what it intended to - giving the evidence high internal validity.
AO3 - Split brain research
Flawed.
Findings came from a very unusual and limited sample of people who were not well matched to a control group.
AO3 - Split brain research
Some participants may have felt more disconnection of the two hemispheres than others as part of their surgery.
AO3 - Split brain research
The control group consisted of participants with no history of epilepsy, making them poorly matched.
Problematic as it brings the conclusions of the research and support for lateralisation into doubt.
AO3 - Split brain research
Gazzaniga (1998)
Reported on the case of JW who developed the ability to speak out of the right hemisphere. He can now speak about information presented to either side of the brain.
Problem as it disconfirms the conclusion that the right hemisphere cannot handle language.
AO3 - Split brain research
Szflarski (2006)
Language became more lateralised as children developed into adolescents.
After the age of 25, lateralisation decreased with each decade of life.
Problem because it suggests it is a much more complex process than many realise - with many questions remaining as to why this happens.
AO3 - Lateralisation
Differences in functions may be overstated.
split-brain research has given rise to the belief that functions are distinct between left and right hemispheres of the brain.
Modern neuroscientists would argue that it is much messier due to the constant communication between both hemispheres when performing everyday tasks.
Suggests lateralisation is much more complex and more research is needed to fully understand it.