Search Results

Functional neuroimaging techniques, e.g. positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and neurophysiological methods, e.g. electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalograpy (MEG), are used widely in cognitive and clinical neuroscience. A common aim is to understand brain function along two dimensions: functional specialization and functional integration. Functional specialization assumes that AQ1 distinct brain regions are specialized for certain aspects of information processing, but allows for the possibility that this specialization is anatomically segregated across multiple regions. Most current functional neuroimaging experiments have adopted this view and interpret the areas that are activated by a certain task component as the elements of a distributed system. However, this characterization does not address how the locally specialized areas are bound together by context-dependent interactions among these areas, i.e. the functional integration within the system. This chapter reviews established techniques for characterizing functional integration on the basis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data.

It is believed that science is at its best when it attempts to understand a phenomenon from multiple disciplines, multiple levels, and multiple systems. Thus, it is hoped that this belief was evident in the pages of this book. Due to the manifestation of animal analogs used to understand fear and anxiety and advances in neuroimaging techniques and molecular neurobiology, it is right to apply the knowledge established by the new theories and techniques to more fully understand the origins and developmental course of extreme fear and shyness in humans than ever before. Moreover, there are many positive qualities to some aspects of shyness and these should be emphasized. It is now the objective of future research to determine how the knowledge established by basic research can be most effectively employed.

This chapter provides a brief introduction to a variety of neuroscience techniques other than MRI and fMRI. We first discuss standard anatomical and physiological techniques for studying neurons and their connections. We then provide brief explanations of non-MRI large-scale neuroimaging techniques used in studying humans, including EEG, MEG, CT, PET and SPECT, as well as some interventional techniques such as TMS. Because of their inferior spatial and temporal resolution, these techniques are likely to appear less often in the courtroom than is MRI and fMRI, but they still provide evidence that may be legally relevant. We conclude the chapter with a brief discussion of advances in genetics that tell us about the brain. Neurogenetics and behavioral genetics are beginning to provide interesting insights into the genetic bases of brain function and of behavioral traits.

This chapter uses the fundamental aspects of language discussed in Chapter 1 to analyze two brain experiments. The presentation of the experiments is preceded by a brief sketch of the two fundamental neuroimaging techniques they employ: Positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The chapter is crucial for understanding the limits and potentials of these new neuroimaging techniques. It shows how, if a sound theoretical framework is lacking, techniques and machines cannot provide interesting data.

Although linked, researchers have long distinguished appetitive from consummatory phases of reward processing. Recent improvements in the spatial and temporal resolution of neuroimaging techniques have allowed researchers to separately visualize different stages of reward processing in humans. These techniques have revealed that evolutionarily conserved circuits related to affect generate distinguishable appetitive and consummatory signals, and that these signals can be used to predict choice and subsequent consumption. Review of the literature surprisingly suggests that appetitive rather than consummatory activity may best predict future choice and consumption. These findings imply that distinguishing appetite from consumption may improve predictions of future choice, and illuminate neural components that support the process of decision-making

Cognitive functions and mental phenomena can be explained to a great extent in terms of neuronal structures and functions. However, there is, at present, no philosophical or scientific consensus on the definition of mental impairments, dysfunction, or disorders. Further, our present knowledge and understanding about how structural and/or functional impairment may affect violent behavior does not allow us to assume that we lack the ability to form and intentionally execute various actions. Regardless of whether or not free will is an illusion, it is clear that the legal system can no longer ignore neuroscientific findings about the relationship between brain functions and violent behavior. Even if brain functions underlying all behaviors are causally determined, reliance on neuroscientific tests and/or neuroimaging techniques in particular, to assess complex legal concepts, is problematic, since neuroimaging techniques are bound to momentary states and can only demonstrate possible correlations between brain function and behavior.