brain abstract

Credit: Getty Images For Unsplash+

In A Nutshell

  • Crossed brain wiring may trace back roughly 500 million years to vision in ancient fish.
  • Researchers reviewed decades of earlier animal studies instead of running new experiments.
  • Touch and movement pathways appear to have crossed later, and mammals’ outer brain layer likely matched that layout.
  • Rewiring would likely have cost too much, but fossils and more animal studies still need to test that hypothesis.

A stroke on the right side of the brain can weaken or numb the left side of the body. Wiggling the toes on a left foot sends a command from the right side of the brain, a crossover seen in humans and most other mammals. A new paper in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy traces the origins of this setup back roughly 500 million years, long before mammals or even limbs existed, and proposes that it has less to do with better performance than with the brain’s evolutionary history.

Martin W. Wessendorf and Daniel Delie Wang of the University of Minnesota reviewed decades of animal studies and concluded that crossed wiring probably began with vision in ancient jawless fish. In their account, the left-right swap was inherited piece by piece from systems that crossed hundreds of millions of years before the first mammal brain developed, not adopted mainly because it performs better.

By the time mammals evolved the neocortex, the outer brain layer involved in higher-level thinking, most major pathways for touch, movement, and orientation were already crossed over, the researchers argue.

Evidence Points to Vision as the Origin of Crossed Brain Wiring

Wessendorf and Wang ran no experiments and worked more like detectives on a very old case. Their paper reviews earlier brain anatomy research and proposes a new explanation, so there were no participants and no sample size to report. They combed databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar for studies on fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. They also tracked down an 1898 paper in Spanish by the neuroscientist Santiago Ramón y Cajal, ran it through text-recognition software and Google Translate, and corrected the errors by hand.

Their reasoning rests on a simple rule: if a trait shows up in most members of a related group, such as all mammals or all vertebrates (animals with backbones), the likeliest explanation is that their last shared ancestor had it too.

Vision came first. In every backboned animal reported, nerve fibers from the eyes are sorted at the optic chiasm so the right half of the visual world lands on the left side of the brain, whichever eye took it in. Lampreys and hagfish, jawless fish still living today, have this crossing, so the last common ancestor of all backboned animals likely did too.

Cajal proposed in 1898 that vision shaped the crossed arrangement, and the new paper agrees. Its added idea involves the optic tectum, a midbrain structure that combines sight, touch, and hearing into one map of surrounding space. Because the tectum’s visual map was crossed, the authors propose, its other senses and movement outputs lined up with it.

Evolution of Contralateral Brain Wiring
Why does the right brain control the left body? Researchers propose the answer lies in 500 million years of evolution. (Image by StudyFinds)

Touch and Movement Pathways Crossed After Vision Did

Touch, pain, and body-position pathways were likely crossed by the time of the last common ancestor of four-limbed animals such as amphibians, and circuits that steer the body toward or away from sights and sounds appear to predate limbs. A pathway linking the neocortex to the spinal cord, the system behind voluntary movement in mammals, came last.

Plenty of circuits break the pattern. Smell, taste, and balance control stay mostly on the same side, as does the cerebellum, a movement-coordination region. Even the neocortex’s link to the spinal cord varies: it crosses in most mammals but runs on both sides in goats and elephants and mostly the same side in hedgehogs and moles. That variety, the authors say, hints that crossing in this pathway is not strongly favored by natural selection.

Crossed Brain Wiring Likely Persisted Because Rewiring Would Have Cost Too Much

Mammals appeared about 165 million years ago, and the crossed touch and movement systems they inherited were already almost 200 million years old. An uncrossed neocortex, the authors reason, would have required either several extra crossings to bring signals to the same side or a rewiring of existing circuits from scratch.

Either path, they argue, would likely have carried what they call a “wiring cost,” which could leave mammals less energy efficient, less intelligent, or both. Cited research describes a trade-off between performance and energy use that mammal brains appear to balance well.

Wessendorf and Wang present this as a hypothesis, not a conclusion proven by new experiments. Earlier explanations, such as crossing helping animals survive injury to one side, remain untested in living animals, and crossing may still have offered some benefit.

Future work could test it. Fossils of early jawless fish might preserve the optic tectum and optic chiasm, which would show vision crossed that early. More bird species could be checked for a crossed brain-to-spinal-cord pathway, and crocodilians, which appear never to have been examined, are predicted to have one. The authors also predict that crossed wiring will prove more efficient than any plausible uncrossed alternative, a claim still untested.

That the right brain commands the left foot may owe less to smart design than to inheritance. Vision crossed first in ancient fish, and building every later system around that layout was likely easier than starting over. Whether Wessendorf and Wang are right will depend on what those tests turn up.


Disclaimer: This article is based on a peer-reviewed scientific paper but is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended to serve as medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a licensed physician or qualified healthcare provider with any questions regarding a medical condition.


Paper Notes

Limitations

Wessendorf and Wang review earlier studies rather than gather new data, and the paper is classified as Hypothesis and Theory. Evolutionary timelines come from comparing living animals and inferring what their shared ancestors had, since those ancestors’ brains cannot be examined directly. The Methods section names the databases searched but does not lay out a formal system for selecting studies. Hearing pathways evolved partly independently across animal groups and need more cautious interpretation than other senses. Some pathways vary by species, and the authors treat missing or same-sided versions in certain groups as later changes rather than ancestral traits. Relatively few bird species have been examined, and crocodilians appear not to have been studied for a crossed brain-to-spinal-cord pathway, so predictions about those animals remain untested. The authors describe their central claims, including the visual origin, the wiring-cost explanation, and the fossil and efficiency predictions, as hypotheses for future research, and they note that crossed organization may still have been beneficial compared with the alternatives.

Funding and Disclosures

The authors report financial support in part from Public Health Service grant DA043774 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and from the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Minnesota. The funders had no role in the design, data collection, data analysis, or reporting of the study. The authors declared no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest and stated that generative artificial intelligence was not used in creating the manuscript.

Publication Details

Title: “Why is the right side of the brain responsible for the left side of the body? The evolutionary history of a puzzling trait” | Authors: Martin W. Wessendorf and Daniel Delie Wang, Department of Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States | Journal: Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, volume 20, article 1937941 (open access, CC BY) | Article type: Hypothesis and Theory | Dates: Received July 14, 2026; accepted September 18, 2026; published October 27, 2026 | Editor and reviewers: Javier DeFelipe (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain, editor); Vassiliy Tsytsarev (Johns Hopkins University) and Julio Flores-Lázaro (National Autonomous University of Mexico), reviewers | DOI: 10.3389/fnana.2026.1937941 | Citation: Wessendorf MW and Wang DD (2026) Why is the right side of the brain responsible for the left side of the body? The evolutionary history of a puzzling trait. Front. Neuroanat. 20:1937941. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2026.1937941

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor