Questões de Inglês

Functional specificity in the human brain: A window into the functional architecture of the mind

June 22, 2010

Nancy Kanwisher

  Understanding the nature of the human mind is arguably the greatest intellectual quest of all time. It is also one of the most challenging, requiring the combined insights not only of psychologists, computer scientists, and neuroscientists but of thinkers in nearly every intellectual pursuit, from biology and mathematics to art and anthropology. Here, I discuss one currently fruitful component of this grand enterprise: the effort to infer the architecture of the human mind from the functional organization of the human brain.

  The idea that the human mind/brain is made up of highly specialized components began with the Viennese physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828). Gall proposed that the brain is the seat of the mind, that the mind is composed of distinct mental faculties, and that each mental faculty resides in a specific brain organ. A heated debate on localization of function in the brain raged over the next century, with many of the major figures in the history of neuroscience weighing in (Broca, Brodmann, and Ferrier in favor, and Flourens, Golgi, and Lashley opposed). By the early 20th century, a consensus emerged that at least basic sensory and motor functions reside in specialized brain regions.

  The debate did not end there, however. Today, a century later, two questions are still fiercely contested. First, how functionally specialized are regions of the brain? The concept of functional specialization is not all or none but a matter of degree; a cortical region might be only slightly more engaged in one mental function than another, or it might be exclusively engaged in a single mental function. Many neuroscientists today challenge the strong (exclusive) version of functional specialization. As one visual neuroscientist put it, “each extrastriate visual area, rather than performing a unique, one-function analysis, is engaged, as are most neurons in the visual system, in many different tasks”.

  The second ongoing controversy concerns the question of whether only basic sensory and motor functions are carried out in functionally specialized regions, or whether the same might be true even for higher-level cognitive functions. Although one might think that Broca settled this matter with his demonstration that the left frontal lobe is specialized for aspects of language, the current status of this debate is far from clear. Indeed, a recent authoritative review of the brain-imaging literature on language concludes that “areas of the brain that have been associated with language processing appear to be recruited across other cognitive domains”. The case of language is not unique. Indeed, a backlash against strong functional specialization seems to be in vogue. A recent neuroimaging textbook argues that “unlike the phrenologists, who believed that very complex traits were associated with discrete brain regions, modern researchers recognize that … a single brain region may participate in more than one function”.

(www.pnas.org. Adaptado.)

Functional specificity in the human brain: A window into the functional architecture of the mind

June 22, 2010

Nancy Kanwisher

  Understanding the nature of the human mind is arguably the greatest intellectual quest of all time. It is also one of the most challenging, requiring the combined insights not only of psychologists, computer scientists, and neuroscientists but of thinkers in nearly every intellectual pursuit, from biology and mathematics to art and anthropology. Here, I discuss one currently fruitful component of this grand enterprise: the effort to infer the architecture of the human mind from the functional organization of the human brain.

  The idea that the human mind/brain is made up of highly specialized components began with the Viennese physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828). Gall proposed that the brain is the seat of the mind, that the mind is composed of distinct mental faculties, and that each mental faculty resides in a specific brain organ. A heated debate on localization of function in the brain raged over the next century, with many of the major figures in the history of neuroscience weighing in (Broca, Brodmann, and Ferrier in favor, and Flourens, Golgi, and Lashley opposed). By the early 20th century, a consensus emerged that at least basic sensory and motor functions reside in specialized brain regions.

  The debate did not end there, however. Today, a century later, two questions are still fiercely contested. First, how functionally specialized are regions of the brain? The concept of functional specialization is not all or none but a matter of degree; a cortical region might be only slightly more engaged in one mental function than another, or it might be exclusively engaged in a single mental function. Many neuroscientists today challenge the strong (exclusive) version of functional specialization. As one visual neuroscientist put it, “each extrastriate visual area, rather than performing a unique, one-function analysis, is engaged, as are most neurons in the visual system, in many different tasks”.

  The second ongoing controversy concerns the question of whether only basic sensory and motor functions are carried out in functionally specialized regions, or whether the same might be true even for higher-level cognitive functions. Although one might think that Broca settled this matter with his demonstration that the left frontal lobe is specialized for aspects of language, the current status of this debate is far from clear. Indeed, a recent authoritative review of the brain-imaging literature on language concludes that “areas of the brain that have been associated with language processing appear to be recruited across other cognitive domains”. The case of language is not unique. Indeed, a backlash against strong functional specialization seems to be in vogue. A recent neuroimaging textbook argues that “unlike the phrenologists, who believed that very complex traits were associated with discrete brain regions, modern researchers recognize that … a single brain region may participate in more than one function”.

(www.pnas.org. Adaptado.)

Functional specificity in the human brain: A window into the functional architecture of the mind

June 22, 2010

Nancy Kanwisher

  Understanding the nature of the human mind is arguably the greatest intellectual quest of all time. It is also one of the most challenging, requiring the combined insights not only of psychologists, computer scientists, and neuroscientists but of thinkers in nearly every intellectual pursuit, from biology and mathematics to art and anthropology. Here, I discuss one currently fruitful component of this grand enterprise: the effort to infer the architecture of the human mind from the functional organization of the human brain.

  The idea that the human mind/brain is made up of highly specialized components began with the Viennese physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828). Gall proposed that the brain is the seat of the mind, that the mind is composed of distinct mental faculties, and that each mental faculty resides in a specific brain organ. A heated debate on localization of function in the brain raged over the next century, with many of the major figures in the history of neuroscience weighing in (Broca, Brodmann, and Ferrier in favor, and Flourens, Golgi, and Lashley opposed). By the early 20th century, a consensus emerged that at least basic sensory and motor functions reside in specialized brain regions.

  The debate did not end there, however. Today, a century later, two questions are still fiercely contested. First, how functionally specialized are regions of the brain? The concept of functional specialization is not all or none but a matter of degree; a cortical region might be only slightly more engaged in one mental function than another, or it might be exclusively engaged in a single mental function. Many neuroscientists today challenge the strong (exclusive) version of functional specialization. As one visual neuroscientist put it, “each extrastriate visual area, rather than performing a unique, one-function analysis, is engaged, as are most neurons in the visual system, in many different tasks”.

  The second ongoing controversy concerns the question of whether only basic sensory and motor functions are carried out in functionally specialized regions, or whether the same might be true even for higher-level cognitive functions. Although one might think that Broca settled this matter with his demonstration that the left frontal lobe is specialized for aspects of language, the current status of this debate is far from clear. Indeed, a recent authoritative review of the brain-imaging literature on language concludes that “areas of the brain that have been associated with language processing appear to be recruited across other cognitive domains”. The case of language is not unique. Indeed, a backlash against strong functional specialization seems to be in vogue. A recent neuroimaging textbook argues that “unlike the phrenologists, who believed that very complex traits were associated with discrete brain regions, modern researchers recognize that … a single brain region may participate in more than one function”.

(www.pnas.org. Adaptado.)

Functional specificity in the human brain: A window into the functional architecture of the mind

June 22, 2010

Nancy Kanwisher

  Understanding the nature of the human mind is arguably the greatest intellectual quest of all time. It is also one of the most challenging, requiring the combined insights not only of psychologists, computer scientists, and neuroscientists but of thinkers in nearly every intellectual pursuit, from biology and mathematics to art and anthropology. Here, I discuss one currently fruitful component of this grand enterprise: the effort to infer the architecture of the human mind from the functional organization of the human brain.

  The idea that the human mind/brain is made up of highly specialized components began with the Viennese physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828). Gall proposed that the brain is the seat of the mind, that the mind is composed of distinct mental faculties, and that each mental faculty resides in a specific brain organ. A heated debate on localization of function in the brain raged over the next century, with many of the major figures in the history of neuroscience weighing in (Broca, Brodmann, and Ferrier in favor, and Flourens, Golgi, and Lashley opposed). By the early 20th century, a consensus emerged that at least basic sensory and motor functions reside in specialized brain regions.

  The debate did not end there, however. Today, a century later, two questions are still fiercely contested. First, how functionally specialized are regions of the brain? The concept of functional specialization is not all or none but a matter of degree; a cortical region might be only slightly more engaged in one mental function than another, or it might be exclusively engaged in a single mental function. Many neuroscientists today challenge the strong (exclusive) version of functional specialization. As one visual neuroscientist put it, “each extrastriate visual area, rather than performing a unique, one-function analysis, is engaged, as are most neurons in the visual system, in many different tasks”.

  The second ongoing controversy concerns the question of whether only basic sensory and motor functions are carried out in functionally specialized regions, or whether the same might be true even for higher-level cognitive functions. Although one might think that Broca settled this matter with his demonstration that the left frontal lobe is specialized for aspects of language, the current status of this debate is far from clear. Indeed, a recent authoritative review of the brain-imaging literature on language concludes that “areas of the brain that have been associated with language processing appear to be recruited across other cognitive domains”. The case of language is not unique. Indeed, a backlash against strong functional specialization seems to be in vogue. A recent neuroimaging textbook argues that “unlike the phrenologists, who believed that very complex traits were associated with discrete brain regions, modern researchers recognize that … a single brain region may participate in more than one function”.

(www.pnas.org. Adaptado.)

WHY I HATE 3D (AND YOU SHOULD TOO)

[1] 3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension.

Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal.

It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience.

For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it

[5] creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to

sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50

surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image

is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable

for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom

[10] of directors to make films as they choose.

That’s my position. I know it’s heresy to the biz

side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given

Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting

for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year’s top three

[15] films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon,

and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and

they’re only the beginning. But many directors, editors,

and cinematographers agree with me about the

shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even

[20] executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood

infatuation with a technology that was already pointless

when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The

heretics’ case, point by point:

IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you

[25] look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your

mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia

growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the

desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows

against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of

[30] perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one

artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE. Recall

the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did

they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our

[35] imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious?

Casablanca?

IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES. As

3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer

Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters

[40] interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. “There are a

lot of people walking around with very minor eye

problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which

under normal circumstances the brain deals with

naturally,” said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at

[45] Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual

experience, and “that translates into greater mental effort,

making it easier to get a headache.” Dr. Deborah

Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology

at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that

[50] in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly

different angle. “When that gets processed in the brain,

that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that

you see in three dimensions in the movies are not

calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain

[55] are.” In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says

about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences

headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT

THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY:

[60] SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D,

STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In

marketing terms, this means offering an experience that

can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs,

HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between

[65] the theater and home experiences has been narrowed.

3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow

that gap as well.

By Roger Ebert Newsweek.com, May 10, 2010 Fonte: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-andyou- should-too.html (with slight adaptations)

WHY I HATE 3D (AND YOU SHOULD TOO)

[1] 3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension.

Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal.

It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience.

For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it

[5] creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to

sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50

surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image

is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable

for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom

[10] of directors to make films as they choose.

That’s my position. I know it’s heresy to the biz

side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given

Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting

for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year’s top three

[15] films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon,

and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and

they’re only the beginning. But many directors, editors,

and cinematographers agree with me about the

shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even

[20] executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood

infatuation with a technology that was already pointless

when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The

heretics’ case, point by point:

IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you

[25] look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your

mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia

growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the

desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows

against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of

[30] perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one

artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE. Recall

the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did

they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our

[35] imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious?

Casablanca?

IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES. As

3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer

Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters

[40] interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. “There are a

lot of people walking around with very minor eye

problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which

under normal circumstances the brain deals with

naturally,” said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at

[45] Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual

experience, and “that translates into greater mental effort,

making it easier to get a headache.” Dr. Deborah

Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology

at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that

[50] in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly

different angle. “When that gets processed in the brain,

that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that

you see in three dimensions in the movies are not

calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain

[55] are.” In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says

about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences

headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT

THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY:

[60] SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D,

STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In

marketing terms, this means offering an experience that

can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs,

HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between

[65] the theater and home experiences has been narrowed.

3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow

that gap as well.

By Roger Ebert Newsweek.com, May 10, 2010 Fonte: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-andyou- should-too.html (with slight adaptations)