The trouble with cognitive subtraction
The trouble with cognitive subtraction
复制标题
DOI：
10.1006/nimg.1996.0033
复制
发表时间：
1996-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Dolan, RJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Friston, KJ;Price, CJ;Dolan, RJ
在本文中，我们提出了一个纯粹的插入的批评。纯插入代表了许多（但不是所有）采用认知减法的研究背后的隐含假设。主要的论点是，纯粹的插入是无效的认知过程的神经元实例化。纯插入断言任务的认知成分之间没有相互作用。可以通过使用析因实验设计明确测试相互作用来评估和反驳这一假设。有人提出，因子设计比减法设计更强大的特征认知神经解剖学，正是因为它们允许的相互作用和回避的概念，如纯插入。特别是，我们认为认知成分的影响（即，独立于其它成分的效果）最好由该成分的主要（激活）效果捕获并且成分之间的整合（即，一个认知过程在另一个认知过程中的表达）可以用相互作用项来评估。在这个框架中，认知神经解剖学的完整表征包括区域特异性激活和区域特异性相互作用。为了说明我们的观点，我们已经使用了析因实验设计，以表明，下颞激活，由于对象识别，深刻调制的语音检索对象的名称。这种相互作用牵连的下颞区在语音检索，在对象命名，尽管事实上，语音检索本身并不激活这一地区。(C)出版社：Academic Press，Inc.
In this paper we present a critique of pure insertion. Pure insertion represents an implicit assumption behind many (but not all) studies that employ cognitive subtraction. The main contention is that pure insertion is not valid in relation to the neuronal instantiation of cognitive processes. Pure insertion asserts that there are no interactions among the cognitive components of a task. It is possible to evaluate and refute this assumption by testing explicitly for interactions using factorial experimental designs. It is proposed that factorial designs are more powerful than subtraction designs in characterizing cognitive neuroanatomy, precisely because they allow for interactions and eschew notions like pure insertion. In particular we suggest that the effect of a cognitive component (i.e., an effect that is independent of other components) is best captured by the main (activation) effect of that component and that the integration among components (i.e., the expression of one cognitive process in the context of another) can be assessed with the interaction terms, In this framework a complete characterization of cognitive neuroanatomy includes both regionally specific activations and regionally specific interactions. To illustrate our point we have used a factorial experimental design to show that inferotemporal activations, due to object recognition, are profoundly modulated by phonological retrieval of the object's name. This interaction implicates the inferotemporal regions in phonological retrieval, during object naming, despite the fact that phonological retrieval does not, by itself, activate this region. (C) 1996 Academic Press, Inc.