As neuroscience research progresses, the concept of the mind becomes of critical importance. The mind is usually considered to be a separate, nonmaterial entity compared to the physical neurons within the brain. However, the field of neuroscience is finding many connections between the physical nature of the brain and the supposed non-physical aspect of the human mind. In a sense, neuroscience seeks to understand the functioning of the mind in terms of the physical neuronal firings of the brain. In addition, neuroscience seeks further information concerning the “fixity” and “plasticity” of the brain. Thus, the field of neuropsychology was begun in response to these questions. The field of neuropsychology was born at the beginning of the
…show more content…
There have been multiple medical case studies concerning loss of facial recognition after a stroke, suggesting facial recognition is a localized mental process. However, Jeeves and Brown prefer to describe facial recognition as domain specific, which is “a brain mechanism dedicated to processing a specific kind of information, as opposed to the idea of general purpose” (Jeeves and Brown, 2009, 60). Particularly, David Perret, at the University of St. Andrews, has studied facial recognition extensively. Perret’s research found, “The information provided by the eyes, the face, and the movements of the body were each selectively processed by particular groups of neurons (Jeeves and Brown, 2009, p. 61). In addition to Perret’s research, Nancy Kanwisher localized facial recognition to what is now called the Fusiform Face Area via her work with fMRI. Kanwisher’s research portrays facial recognition as a domain specific ability; however, Kanwisher believes there is a certain amount of brain plasticity and development within domain specific processes. She cites the development of facial recognition in infants born with bilateral cataracts as evidence for her claim. Nonetheless, Jeeves and Brown do not hastily believe facial recognition is a localized area in the brain. They argue facial recognition may also involve a complex system of integrated brain networks behind the …show more content…
the “God spot”). This is not to say that a localized theory of the brain is wrong because there is scientific evidence supporting links between behavior and location. However, I agree with Jeeves and Brown that the extremes of localization theory should be analyzed with a scrutinizing eye. Some behaviors can be reduced to a single localized area of the brain, but behavior is complex. Thus, assigning a particular area to every human behavior is impossible. In light of scientific evidence, I believe the processing of human behavior is a combination of localization and general processing. One support for the general processing of the brain that I find particularly interesting is the hemispherectomy. The surgical procedure is performed on children with severe and uncontrollable seizure disorders and consists of removing an entire hemisphere of the child’s brain. Remarkably, the hemisphere of the brain left intact will begin to acquire the tasks of the removed hemisphere and the child will improve to live a relatively normal life. The procedure is often times done to young children because their brains are still developing and can adapt. Thus, this makes me wonder if after maturity behaviors become more localized within the brain or function more
There have been multiple medical case studies concerning loss of facial recognition after a stroke, suggesting facial recognition is a localized mental process. However, Jeeves and Brown prefer to describe facial recognition as domain specific, which is “a brain mechanism dedicated to processing a specific kind of information, as opposed to the idea of general purpose” (Jeeves and Brown, 2009, 60). Particularly, David Perret, at the University of St. Andrews, has studied facial recognition extensively. Perret’s research found, “The information provided by the eyes, the face, and the movements of the body were each selectively processed by particular groups of neurons (Jeeves and Brown, 2009, p. 61). In addition to Perret’s research, Nancy Kanwisher localized facial recognition to what is now called the Fusiform Face Area via her work with fMRI. Kanwisher’s research portrays facial recognition as a domain specific ability; however, Kanwisher believes there is a certain amount of brain plasticity and development within domain specific processes. She cites the development of facial recognition in infants born with bilateral cataracts as evidence for her claim. Nonetheless, Jeeves and Brown do not hastily believe facial recognition is a localized area in the brain. They argue facial recognition may also involve a complex system of integrated brain networks behind the …show more content…
the “God spot”). This is not to say that a localized theory of the brain is wrong because there is scientific evidence supporting links between behavior and location. However, I agree with Jeeves and Brown that the extremes of localization theory should be analyzed with a scrutinizing eye. Some behaviors can be reduced to a single localized area of the brain, but behavior is complex. Thus, assigning a particular area to every human behavior is impossible. In light of scientific evidence, I believe the processing of human behavior is a combination of localization and general processing. One support for the general processing of the brain that I find particularly interesting is the hemispherectomy. The surgical procedure is performed on children with severe and uncontrollable seizure disorders and consists of removing an entire hemisphere of the child’s brain. Remarkably, the hemisphere of the brain left intact will begin to acquire the tasks of the removed hemisphere and the child will improve to live a relatively normal life. The procedure is often times done to young children because their brains are still developing and can adapt. Thus, this makes me wonder if after maturity behaviors become more localized within the brain or function more