Towards an Evolutionary Framework for Human Cognitive Neuroscience

In a recent review of her research on early language acquisition, Max-Planck Society neurolinguist Angela Friederici (2005) demonstrated a correspondence between the major changes in the linguistic competencies of children in the first months and years of life and the markers of event related potentials to acoustic stimuli on the interval from 50 to approximately 600 ms following presentation. Thus, extended periods of individual development find their expression in microgenesis – the rapid progression of processing operations in the adult brain. Though elucidation of these operations is a prominent objective for psychology and neuroscience, the developmental evidence, so obvious in data presented by Friederici, played little if any role in mainstream studies for the most part of the cognitive era. The reason for this was the computer-metaphor framework, which stressed the similarity of symbolic information processing in conventional computers and humans. The presumed unitary constraints, which could be attributed to the central processing unit of mental machinery, have never been found. This failure of the mind/computer metaphor was predestined by its inherent incompatibility with evolutionary and developmental concepts.

[1]  H. C. Dijkerman,et al.  Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[2]  A. Treisman How the deployment of attention determines what we see , 2006, Visual cognition.

[3]  S. Palmer,et al.  Grounding the figure: Surface attachment influences figure-ground organization , 2006, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[4]  Wolfgang Friedlmeier,et al.  Development of Emotions and Emotion Regulation , 2005 .

[5]  A. Friederici Neurophysiological markers of early language acquisition: from syllables to sentences , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  Sophie K Scott,et al.  Auditory processing — speech, space and auditory objects , 2005, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[7]  B. Velichkovsky Modularity of cognitive organization: Why it is so appealing and why it is wrong , 2005 .

[8]  D. Kahneman Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics , 2003 .

[9]  Richard J. Davidson,et al.  Seven sins in the study of emotion: Correctives from affective neuroscience , 2003, Brain and Cognition.

[10]  D. Kahneman Maps of Bounded Rationality , 2002 .

[11]  B. Velichkovsky Heterarchy of cognition: The depths and the highs of a framework for memory research , 2002, Memory.

[12]  J. Panksepp Jaak Panksepp The Neuro-Evolutionary Cusp Between Emotions and Cognitions Implications for Understanding Consciousness and the Emergence of a Unified Mind Science , 2001 .

[13]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Distributed representation of objects in the human ventral visual pathway. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  Semir Zeki,et al.  Art and the brain , 1998 .

[15]  Levels-of-processing effects on a variety of memory tasks: new findings and theoretical implications. , 1996, Consciousness and cognition.

[16]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[17]  M. Posner,et al.  Attentional networks , 1994, Trends in Neurosciences.

[18]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science , 1994, Cognition.

[19]  B. Velichkovsky The vertical dimension of mental functioning , 1990 .

[20]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[21]  B. Velichkovsky Visual cognition and its spatial-temporal context , 1982 .

[22]  R. Mansfield,et al.  Analysis of visual behavior , 1982 .

[23]  Leslie G. Ungerleider Two cortical visual systems , 1982 .

[24]  T. Shipley,et al.  Sensory direction inhomogeneous binocular visual space , 1971 .

[25]  C. Trevarthen,et al.  Two mechanisms of vision in primates , 1968, Psychologische Forschung.