A framework for the study of multiple realizations: the importance of levels of analysis

Morten Overgaard; Jesper Mogensen

A framework for the study of multiple realizations: the importance of levels of analysis

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The brain may undergo functional reorganizations. Selective loss of sensory input or training within a restricted part of a modality cause "shifts" within for instance somatotopic or tonotopic maps. Cross-modal plasticity occurs when input within a modality is absent e.g., in the congenitally blind. Reorganizations are also found in functional recovery after brain injury. Focusing on such reorganizations, it may be studied whether a cognitive or conscious process can exclusively be mediated by one neural substrate or may be associated with multiple neural representations. This is typically known as the problem of multiple realization an essentially empirical issue with wide theoretical implications. This issue may appear to have a simple solution. When, for instance, the symptoms associated with brain injury disappear and the recovery is associated with increased activities within spared regions of the brain, it is tempting to conclude that the processes originally associated with the injured part of the brain are now mediated by an alternative neural substrate. Such a conclusion is, however, not a simple matter. Without a more thorough analysis, it cannot be concluded that a functional recovery of for instance language or attention is necessarily associated with a novel representation of the processes lost to injury. Alternatively, for instance, the recovery may reflect that apparently similar surface phenomena are obtained via dissimilar cognitive mechanisms. In this paper we propose a theoretical framework, which we believe can guide the design and interpretations of studies of post-traumatic recovery. It is essential to distinguish between a number of levels of analysis including a differentiation between the surface phenomena and the underlying information processing when addressing, for instance, whether a pre-traumatic and posttraumatically recovered cognitive or conscious process are actually the same. We propose a (somewhat preliminary) system of levels of analysis, which can be applied to such studies.

Original language	English
Journal	Frontiers in Psychology
Volume	2:79
Pages (from-to)	1-10
Number of pages	10
ISSN	1664-1078
Publication status	Published - 2011

Keywords

Faculty of Social Sciences

Cite this

@article{b261c777fa654169ac67f9c492d9ce61,

title = "A framework for the study of multiple realizations: the importance of levels of analysis",

abstract = "The brain may undergo functional reorganizations. Selective loss of sensory input or training within a restricted part of a modality cause {"}shifts{"} within for instance somatotopic or tonotopic maps. Cross-modal plasticity occurs when input within a modality is absent e.g., in the congenitally blind. Reorganizations are also found in functional recovery after brain injury. Focusing on such reorganizations, it may be studied whether a cognitive or conscious process can exclusively be mediated by one neural substrate or may be associated with multiple neural representations. This is typically known as the problem of multiple realization an essentially empirical issue with wide theoretical implications. This issue may appear to have a simple solution. When, for instance, the symptoms associated with brain injury disappear and the recovery is associated with increased activities within spared regions of the brain, it is tempting to conclude that the processes originally associated with the injured part of the brain are now mediated by an alternative neural substrate. Such a conclusion is, however, not a simple matter. Without a more thorough analysis, it cannot be concluded that a functional recovery of for instance language or attention is necessarily associated with a novel representation of the processes lost to injury. Alternatively, for instance, the recovery may reflect that apparently similar surface phenomena are obtained via dissimilar cognitive mechanisms. In this paper we propose a theoretical framework, which we believe can guide the design and interpretations of studies of post-traumatic recovery. It is essential to distinguish between a number of levels of analysis including a differentiation between the surface phenomena and the underlying information processing when addressing, for instance, whether a pre-traumatic and posttraumatically recovered cognitive or conscious process are actually the same. We propose a (somewhat preliminary) system of levels of analysis, which can be applied to such studies.",

keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, neural substrat, kognition, bevidsthed, neurale korrelater til bevidsthed, analyseniveauer, kognitive modeller, REF-modellen, substratafh{\ae}ngighed, multiple realisationer, plasticitet, reorganisering, hjerneskade, rehabilitering, funktionel genopretning, sprog, opm{\ae}rksomhed, indl{\ae}ring, probleml{\o}sning",

author = "Morten Overgaard and Jesper Mogensen",

year = "2011",

language = "English",

volume = "2:79",

pages = "1--10",

journal = "Frontiers in Psychology",

issn = "1664-1078",

publisher = "Frontiers Media S.A.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A framework for the study of multiple realizations: the importance of levels of analysis

AU - Overgaard, Morten

AU - Mogensen, Jesper

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The brain may undergo functional reorganizations. Selective loss of sensory input or training within a restricted part of a modality cause "shifts" within for instance somatotopic or tonotopic maps. Cross-modal plasticity occurs when input within a modality is absent e.g., in the congenitally blind. Reorganizations are also found in functional recovery after brain injury. Focusing on such reorganizations, it may be studied whether a cognitive or conscious process can exclusively be mediated by one neural substrate or may be associated with multiple neural representations. This is typically known as the problem of multiple realization an essentially empirical issue with wide theoretical implications. This issue may appear to have a simple solution. When, for instance, the symptoms associated with brain injury disappear and the recovery is associated with increased activities within spared regions of the brain, it is tempting to conclude that the processes originally associated with the injured part of the brain are now mediated by an alternative neural substrate. Such a conclusion is, however, not a simple matter. Without a more thorough analysis, it cannot be concluded that a functional recovery of for instance language or attention is necessarily associated with a novel representation of the processes lost to injury. Alternatively, for instance, the recovery may reflect that apparently similar surface phenomena are obtained via dissimilar cognitive mechanisms. In this paper we propose a theoretical framework, which we believe can guide the design and interpretations of studies of post-traumatic recovery. It is essential to distinguish between a number of levels of analysis including a differentiation between the surface phenomena and the underlying information processing when addressing, for instance, whether a pre-traumatic and posttraumatically recovered cognitive or conscious process are actually the same. We propose a (somewhat preliminary) system of levels of analysis, which can be applied to such studies.

AB - The brain may undergo functional reorganizations. Selective loss of sensory input or training within a restricted part of a modality cause "shifts" within for instance somatotopic or tonotopic maps. Cross-modal plasticity occurs when input within a modality is absent e.g., in the congenitally blind. Reorganizations are also found in functional recovery after brain injury. Focusing on such reorganizations, it may be studied whether a cognitive or conscious process can exclusively be mediated by one neural substrate or may be associated with multiple neural representations. This is typically known as the problem of multiple realization an essentially empirical issue with wide theoretical implications. This issue may appear to have a simple solution. When, for instance, the symptoms associated with brain injury disappear and the recovery is associated with increased activities within spared regions of the brain, it is tempting to conclude that the processes originally associated with the injured part of the brain are now mediated by an alternative neural substrate. Such a conclusion is, however, not a simple matter. Without a more thorough analysis, it cannot be concluded that a functional recovery of for instance language or attention is necessarily associated with a novel representation of the processes lost to injury. Alternatively, for instance, the recovery may reflect that apparently similar surface phenomena are obtained via dissimilar cognitive mechanisms. In this paper we propose a theoretical framework, which we believe can guide the design and interpretations of studies of post-traumatic recovery. It is essential to distinguish between a number of levels of analysis including a differentiation between the surface phenomena and the underlying information processing when addressing, for instance, whether a pre-traumatic and posttraumatically recovered cognitive or conscious process are actually the same. We propose a (somewhat preliminary) system of levels of analysis, which can be applied to such studies.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - neural substrat

KW - kognition

KW - bevidsthed

KW - neurale korrelater til bevidsthed

KW - analyseniveauer

KW - kognitive modeller

KW - REF-modellen

KW - substratafhængighed

KW - multiple realisationer

KW - plasticitet

KW - reorganisering

KW - hjerneskade

KW - rehabilitering

KW - funktionel genopretning

KW - sprog

KW - opmærksomhed

KW - indlæring

KW - problemløsning

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1664-1078

VL - 2:79

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - Frontiers in Psychology

JF - Frontiers in Psychology

ER -

A framework for the study of multiple realizations: the importance of levels of analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Fingerprint

Cite this