Subscribe Now!

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

The Prefrontal Cortex Is Holistic

The question of whether the brain is "modular" - whether different parts do different things - has been a neuroscientific talking point since the days of the phrenologists.

They were the guys who believed that, not only were there modules, but that you could tell how big they were by measuring the shape of someone's skull, and so learn about their personality.

Phrenology made modules unfashionable for a while, but today they're back, and most of fMRI consists in trying to find areas of the brain that do different stuff, but in a new paper Wilson et al argue against taking modularism too far: Functional localization within the prefrontal cortex: missing the forest for the trees?

Their focus is the prefrontal cortex (PFC), a large chunk of the front of the brain which is bigger in humans than in any other species. The PFC is routinely subdivided into segments, each with (presumably) a different function. So we have the "emotional" vmPFC, the "memory" dlPFC, the "pleasure" OFC, etc.

Wilson et al don't dispute that there are some variations in function between different bits of the PFC, but they say that in all the excitement over localization, we may have overlooked the role of the PFC as a whole.

They discuss evidence from monkeys with PFC damage (or lesions which disconnect it from the rest of the brain). Damage to the entire PFC, they say, leaves monkeys completely unable to perform tasks which require storing concepts over time. For example, they can't learn that whenever they see, say, a red button, they ought to press it to get food. But if part of the PFC is intact, and it doesn't matter which part, monkeys can do this with only minor problems.

However, the PFC isn't required for all tasks. If the task only involves information which is all presented at once, the lesioned monkeys are OK. So they could learn, given a big panel covered in red buttons, to push the buttons to get food, because the buttons are all there simultaneously.
Hence the data from these tasks are congruent with the notion that [the PFC] is only crucial in memory during tasks requiring the processing of temporally complex events. This can be defined as an event to be learned about, in which information that is crucial to that learning is presented at more than one point in time, or that can only be interpreted with respect to a preceding event.
They say that evidence from human neuroimaging studies supports this view.
A meta-analysis has shown consistent recruitment of the same network of regions in the PFC across a range of cognitive demands. The authors argue that this supports specialization of function within the PFC, but of an unexpected nature, namely ‘a specific frontal-lobe network that is consistently recruited for solution of diverse cognitive problems’. The idea that large and different regions of the PFC are recruited by any task at hand supports our argument that the function of the PFC as a whole exceeds the sum of the functions of its subcomponents.
This all has echoes of Karl Lashley, an early neuroscientist (died 1958) who proposed the theory of "mass action" - that the whole cortex contributes to behaviour, rather than each part doing different things ("modularism").

Jerry Fodor, whose classic book The Modularity of Mind (1983) helped to rehabilitate modularism from its reputation as "phrenological", was also an advocate of this view - within limits.

Fodor argued that some brain systems, like vision, hearing and language, were cortical modules, but that above this, there was a non-modular system which was the basis for thought, intelligence and decision making. If I remember correctly, he didn't explicitly say that the prefrontal cortex was this system, but I'm sure he'd have no objections to Wilson et al's account.

ResearchBlogging.orgWilson CR, Gaffan D, Browning PG, & Baxter MG (2010). Functional localization within the prefrontal cortex: missing the forest for the trees? Trends in neurosciences PMID: 20864190

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

And where do you fall in this dispute between the modular and holistic crowd?

petrossa said...

The brain is modular in the sense that genetically predetermined neural networks perform certain tasks.

However a neural network being what it is, it can be distributed over any part of the brain. It needs not be localised, but it can be. And is in most instances. The motor centra for example are were they are always in every mammal.

For the higher order functions things get more fluid. Evidently the brain allocates resources to certain tasks, which makes that other tasks suffer in consequence. Driving whilst talking on the phone is a dead give away.

Holistic is a kind of new age term without real content. More metaphysical then real. So one can apply it easily to anything because it doesn't mean much but an abstract concept.

Neuroskeptic said...

Anonymous: Well I think Wilson et al have a good point which is that studies on what happens when you damage part of the prefrontal cortex don't tell us much about what the PFC as a whole does.

We know that lesions to different parts of the PFC cause various effects (e.g. Phineas Gage), and it's easy to conclude from that that the PFC is no more than a collection of bits, which can each be lesioned seperately.

But the monkey evidence shows that total PFC lesions cause very extensive effects, which are much more than the sum of smaller lesions. In humans, total PFC damage has never happened (afaik), so we don't know if the same is true in humans but it seems quite possible. If so, we may be overlooking the true function of the PFC by focussing on individual bits of it.

Anonymous said...

I recommend Fuster's paper on "cognits"

FUSTER, J. (2006). The cognit: A network model of cortical representation International Journal of Psychophysiology, 60 (2), 125-132 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.12.015

Beth said...

As far as I recall, in MS, increased lesion load (in the brain) is correlated with increased cognitive problems (or maybe increased chance of cognitive problems) regardless of the location of the lesions. What that means with the monkey research, but it reminded me. Sorry I can't provide a cite, it's just differences I've noticed over the past several years in the explanatory lit the NMSS gives out.

I wonder if there has been a case of MS which has led to total PFC lesions. Unlikely, true, but entirely possible.

When it comes to lesions, I tend to think of the brain like a city under attack. One bridge down here or there is relatively unlikely to prevent the city from functioning but as roadblocks increase, there eventually comes a point at which there are precious few if any redundancies and the city lies besieged, much less functional than it was before even the final attack. Each downed bridge, each road block, their effects on the city is not additive but more like exponential. But this is just the model I, a layperson, have concerning the cognitive effects of brain lesions. Reading about more research is getting me to think it's a pretty good way to think about it.

Michael Slezak said...

From my understanding, the issue of modularity and the issue of localisation are separate.

Modularity is a kind of methodological assumption for cognitive scientists (like fodor), who treat the brain as functioning as if it had separate modules. Whether these are actually separately located is another issue.

But I don't know anything about neuroscience so these terms could be used completely differently there...

Neuroskeptic said...

Michael: That's a good point, although I think many people assume, not unreasonably, that if the mind is modular, the brain is, and vice versa.

Bradley Voytek said...

Hey neuroskeptic! "Oscillatory Thoughts" here.

So I actually do a lot of work with patients with strokes. Just wanted to chime in and say that the Wilson et al. paper is great! I actually wrote a book chapter on this topic:
http://darb.ketyov.com/professional/publications/Voytek-MindAndTheFrontalLobes-Chapter.pdf

And just had two of my lesion papers come out:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/11/03_prefrontal_cortex_stroke.shtml

Both of these papers make arguments for how important whole cognitive "networks" are for brain functioning, and the role that compensation plays in stroke recovery.

Just thought it was relevant to this topic, and that you might be interested.

Neuroskeptic said...

Bradley: Good to hear from you! I'll definitely take a look at those papers...