Neuropsychology Debate
Introduction
Cognitive neuropsychology was first mentioned in the 2nd half of the 19th century. During this time, neurologists such as Bastian, Wernicke and others started contributing to the architecture of the human brain regarding the intact language-processing system from a number of studies in ways which the human cognition; written or spoken abilities would start to break down following brain damage (Ellis & Young, 2013). They began to share their findings regarding this debate by means of bow-and-arrow diagrams. As such, they were named the ‘diagram makers’ of the century. Since then, so much evidence has been collected over the years to support their research as well as add more relevant information. This evidence will be discussed critically in this essay to see what it tells us.
Following the analysis of different neurological conditions, researchers started to claim that there is a relationship between cognitive processes and neuroanatomy. Indeed, most of the knowledge regarding the functional organisation of the human brain has come from this research and analysis over the years. More recently, Ellis and Young (2013) studied the performance of patients who had undergone brain damage and used this to add more conclusions regarding the architecture of normal cognitive processes separately from their specific implementation. Of course, this is illogical, given that research about the pathological states that result from brain damage will add more knowledge on the brain’s functional organisation.
According to Kosslyn-Van Kleek (1990), the objective of cognitive neurophysiology is to utilise the performance of brain-damaged subjects to constrain theories of normal cognitive processing (Kosslyn & James, 1992). As such, he adds that the characterisation of the scope of cognitive neuropsychology is not correct. It is evident that his view of cognitive neuropsychology is restrictive, and thus misleading. He states that the only goal is to develop theories of functional components, but it also attempts to specify the processing structure of hypothesised components and the types of representations they compute. Caramazza (1992) mostly defends weak cognitive neuropsychology, and many researchers such as Ellis and Young (2013) have agreed with his defense, unlike KVK.
Additionally, Kosslyn and James (1992) answered the question of whether the patterns of performance following brain damage reveal in themselves the nature of human information processing. He stated that strong cognitive neuropsychology can be seen in an experiment where an individual sits on a one-legged stool. The individual will manage to sit on the stool, but its instability makes it easy to shift to a different position. According to Caramazza (1990), the human brain entails intimately interconnected neural subsystems, as such, what the patient can and cannot accomplish depend on a number of variables following brain damage (Ellis & Young, 2013). For instance, a damaged brain disrupts the connections, thus leading to a reduction inactivation, thus the patient cannot perform more difficult tasks. These indirect disruptions lead to a number of compensations and possible the development of new processes, which change the behaviour of the individual.
Conclusion
The debate about cognitive neuropsychology and its importance in understanding human behaviour has continued for decades. In this essay, a critical analysis of the views of different research is done and it is found that different researchers have different views regarding this issue. However, many support that fact that cognitive neuropsychology helps to understand human cognition.
References
Ellis, A.W. and Young, A.W., 2013. Human cognitive neuropsychology: A textbook with readings. Psychology Press.
Kosslyn, S.M . and James M. I., 1992. is cognitive neuropsychology plausible? The perils of sitting on a one-legged stool. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 4(1): 96-105. Routledge.
