Neuroscience and Higher Brain Function: From Myth to Public Responsibility

Plum, Fred; Volpe, Bruce T.

doi:10.1002/cphy.cp010501

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the ancient world, the function of the brain was not clear. Most cultures thought that the heart was the most important organ, and many paid little attention to the brain (Dudai, 1989;Finger, 1994;Plum & Volpe, 1987). For the Chinese, it was an auxiliary organ, less important than the five major organs, which were heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, and spleen.…”

Section: The Riddle Of Brain Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory in Neuroscience: Rhetoric Versus Reality

Wolpaw

2002

Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central point of this article is that the concept of memory as information storage in the brain is inadequate for and irrelevant to understanding the nervous system. Beginning from the sensorimotor hypothesis that underlies neuroscience--that the entire function of the nervous system is to connect experience to appropriate behavior--the paper defines memories as sequences of events that connect remote experience to present behavior. Their essential components are (a) persistent events that bridge the time from remote experience to present behavior and (b) junctional events in which connections from remote experience and recent experience merge to produce behavior. The sequences comprising even the simplest memories are complex. This is both necessary--to preserve previously learned behaviors--and inevitable--due to secondary activity-driven plasticity. This complexity further highlights the inadequacy of the information storage concept and the importance of extreme simplicity in models used to study memory.

show abstract

Section: The Riddle Of Brain Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory in Neuroscience: Rhetoric Versus Reality

Wolpaw

2002

Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The evidence marshaled by Gall in support of his theory came principally from individuals who were characterized either by unusual crania or unusual behaviors (Finger, 1994). This led to a spirited controversy between the cerebral holism of Pierre Fluorens and the ultralocalizationism (phrenology) of Francis Gall (Flechsig, 1896;Phillips, Zeki, & Barlow, 1984;Plum & Volpe, 1987;Ziilch, 1976). This debate was featured at the 1881 meeting of the International Medical Congress in London, with Ferrier advancing the localizationist view, and Goltz challenging at least the strongest form of that position (see Phillips et al, 1984).…”

Section: Gary G Berntsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain imaging and cognitive neuroscience: Toward strong inference in attributing function to structure.

Sarter¹,

Berntson²,

Cacioppo³

1996

American Psychologist

168

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive neuroscience has emerged from the neurosciences and cognitive psychology as a scientific discipline that aims at the determination of "how brain function gives rise to mental activity" (S. M. Kosslyn & L. M. Shin, 1992, p. 146). While research in cognitive neuroscience combines many levels of neuroscientific and psychological analyses, modern imaging techniques that monitor brain activity during behavioral or cognitive operations have significantly contributed to the emergence of this discipline. The conclusions deduced from these studies are inherently localizationistic in nature; in other words, they describe cognitive functions as being localized in focal brain regions (brain activity in a defined brain region, phi, is involved in specific cognitive function, psi). A broad discussion about the virtues and limitations of such conclusions may help avoid the emergence of a mentalistic localizationism (i.e., the attribution of mentalistic concepts such as happiness, morality, or consciousness to brain structure) and illustrates the importance of a convergence with information generated by different research strategies (such as, for example, evidence generated by studies in which the effects of experimental manipulations of local neuronal processes on cognitive functions are assessed). Progress in capitalizing on brain-imaging studies to investigate questions of the form "brain structure or event phi is associated with cognitive function psi" may be impeded because of the way in which inferences are typically formulated in the brain imaging literature. A conceptual framework to advance the interpretation of data describing the relationships between cognitive phenomena and brain structure activity is provided.

show abstract

“…The relationship between mind and brain has engaged observers of behavior from ancient times. Accounts of the history of ideas and observations on this relationship can be found in a variety of sources (e.g., see Brazier, 1984; Hilgard, 1987; Hothersall, 1984; Marx & Cronan-Hillix, 1987; Plum & Volpe, 1987; Pribram & Robinson, 1985; Rose & Bynum, 1982). The relationship between brain and mind was historically an area of study and speculation that fell within the provinces of philosophy, medicine, and the biological sciences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%