Operational principles of neurocognitive networks
Introduction
The gap between knowledge of the brain and of the mind can only be bridged with understanding of neural systems that perform cognitive operations. According to this perspective, the neurocognitive network is a critical concept for uniting neuroscience and cognitive science. Neurocognitive networks are integrated large-scale neural systems that execute the high-level brain functions of which cognition is comprised (Luria, 1962, Başar et al., 1975a, Başar et al., 1975b, Goldman-Rakic, 1988, Mesulam, 1990, Fuster, 1995, Fuster, 2003, Bressler, 1995, Bressler, 1999, Bressler, 2002, Bressler, 2003a, Bressler, 2003b, Bullmore et al., 1996, Mountcastle, 1998, McIntosh, 2000, Nyberg et al., 2000, Hirsch et al., 2001, Başar and Karakaş, 2004). Although multitudinous in the variety of their expression, it is not unreasonable that these networks should follow common laws of operation, given the neuroanatomical and neurophysiological similarity that exists throughout the brain. The intent of this article is to consider what general principles might guide the operations of neurocognitive networks.
The approach to be followed is based on the tenet that there exist fundamental correspondences among the anatomical structure of neurocognitive networks, their functions, and the dynamic patterning of their active states (Arbib et al., 1997). The anatomical architecture of the network provides the basic substrate of interconnected brain regions that, by way of their interactions, are able to express particular functions, different functions depending on the specific subsets of connected regions that cooperate. The functions of the neurocognitive network are expressed in real time by the coordinated actions of cooperating areas, with the states of coordination changing dynamically (Bressler and Kelso, 2001).
In this process, the active states of neurocognitive networks are selectively structured in three key dimensions (Fig. 1). First, they are spatially structured by the combined activation of discrete, local cortical and subcortical neuronal assemblies. Next, they are temporally structured by the changing combinatorial arrangement of active assemblies during the expression of cognitive functions. Finally they are coordinatively structured by the specifically patterned joint actions of activated assemblies. The presumption that neurocognitive networks do in fact implement cognitive function further implies that the expression of cognitive function occurs as structured states, with a structure corresponding to that of the active states of neurocognitive networks. Thus, by careful examination of the anatomical, functional, and dynamical aspects of neurocognitive networks, we anticipate the eventual emergence of a neural language for describing cognition.
Section snippets
Anatomical structure of neurocognitive networks
We consider the anatomical organization of neurocognitive networks to be of prime importance in shaping the cognitive operations of the brain. Neural networks may be described at various scales, from small assemblies of neurons to the whole brain. For the purpose of this review, we focus on the cerebral cortex as an essential anatomical component of neurocognitive networks, treating network organization in terms of the long-range connectivity of local cortical areas.
The cerebral cortex is
Functional expression of neurocognitive networks
The intricate anatomical connectivity of the cerebral cortex provides the basis for an enormous space of possible combinations of co-active areas. The guiding concept in this section is that the functional expression of a cognitive operation requires co-activation of a specific combination of interconnected local area networks. The co-activated local area networks represent a subset of the total set of possible networks in the cerebral cortex. The members of this subset act in concert as a
Dynamics of neurocognitive networks
We consider neurocognitive networks to be flexibly adaptive to the rapidly changing computational demands of cognitive processing (Bressler, 1995). This adaptivity requires that the neurocognitive network be able to organize and reorganize in different patterns of coordination as computationally required on a sub-second time scale. The large-scale anatomical connectivity of the cerebral cortex provides a richly intricate structure within which the constituent local area networks have an
Coordination and cognition
We have argued here that the neural underpinning of cognition is best understood through the study of neurocognitive networks, which, following the organizational approach of Arbib et al. (1997), may be pursued through the joint consideration of neuroanatomical structure, neurophysiological function, and neuronal assembly dynamics of the cerebral cortex. When examined from this perspective, cognition is seen as a dynamic process that rapidly evolves through a series of informationally
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant IBN0090717, and National Institute of Mental Health Grants MH64204 and MH42900.
References (146)
- et al.
Are cognitive processes manifested in event-related gamma, alpha, theta and delta oscillations in the EEG?
Neurosci. Lett.
(1999) - et al.
Gamma, alpha, delta, and theta oscillations govern cognitive processes
Int. J. Psychophysiol.
(2001) - et al.
Shadows of artistry: cortical synchrony during perception and imagery of visual art
Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res.
(2002) - et al.
A theory of cognitive control, aging cognition, and neuromodulation
Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.
(2002) Large-scale cortical networks and cognition
Brain Res. Brain Res. Rev.
(1995)- et al.
Frequency analysis of olfactory system EEG in cat, rabbit, and rat
Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.
(1980) - et al.
Cortical coordination dynamics and cognition
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2001) - et al.
Parallel versus serial processing, new vistas on the distributed organization of the visual system
Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
(1995) - et al.
Functional magnetic resonance image analysis of a large-scale neurocognitive network
Neuroimage
(1996) - et al.
How good is good enough in path analysis of fMRI data?
Neuroimage
(2000)