Talk:Left-brain interpreter

A fact from Left-brain interpreter appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 November 2011. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that research on split-brain patients led to identifying the left brain interpreter as a system that rationalizes and generalizes new information that the brain receives?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/November.

Wikipedia

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

January 2014

misleading reference ' Although the concept of the left brain interpreter was initially based on experiments on patients with split brains, it has since been shown to apply to the everyday behavior of people at large.[3] ' This wording leads the reader to believe that reference 3 would contain some evidence that is not based on patients with split brains. However, the quoted page of the book is exactly the same statement (that this research applies to the everyday behaviour of people at large), which is a quote by a friend of Gazzaniga (the scientist studying split-brains). I am writing an essay about interpretative mechanisms in the brain and I have done some research in the field; I have found no direct evidence pointing to the left brain interpreting apart from split brain patients (which is some pretty good evidence, but the opposite should not be stated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.17 (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

"cite a source" The section that states different regions are categorized according to different "levels" of explanation does not cite any source for that assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.47.224 (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideomotor phenomenon

Ideomotor phenomenon links to this page in the "see also" section. I don't quite understand the relation. Should the link be removed, or should an explanation be added to one or both pages by a subject matter expert?

Another note about this page, it seems like it is missing a criticism section. 184.67.135.194 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025 Identifying Various Improvements

There are several issues with this article which I may come back to address in the future; here's a list for those interested in contributing:

The article focuses heavily on the work of Gazzaniga. It's unclear whether further works by other folks on confabulation and explanation generation can be included under this heading. Nick Chater's The Mind is Flat centers on these topics, for example.
The "Further development and similar models" section pulls together a wide array of theories that would best be described under an article for networks or specific theories such as thousand brains or predictive coding. The inclusion in this article appears to parrot, a belief regarding general brain architecture held by Gazzaniga rather than a specific finding or theoretical extension of Left-brain interpreter. This is a nice list, but this section appears to be original research.
I believe the citation needed in the last paragraph of "Experiments" (as of Rev. 20250214) is to Barbey and Patterson (2011).
Per the last comment, there is much need for a criticism section.

MPascale (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]