I’ve decided to do a series on Cognitive Neuroscience. It will be a fun activity for me, and it will also be useful review. So, to begin understanding this topic it is essential to ask how we define cognitive fields of Psychology and Neuroscience, and how they came to be. I think it is important to begin with the Psychological basis, which gave birth to Neuroscience.

What is Cognitive Psychology?

This is the branch of psychology that essentially focuses on cognition, A.K.A. “thinking” processes. This includes various aspects of cognition, e.g. perception, attention, memory, language, problem solving and intelligence. While these traits are not uniquely human, the ability to apply them in a higher order sense is, from what we know, a characteristic only humans have. An example of this “higher-order” application can be seen using a classic Psychology experiment. The experiment goes as follows:
A set of letters are presented to the participant on a screen.

Afterward, the participant will be shown a series of letters (presented one at a time) and will have to decide whether or not they were shown on the original slide.

The result of this experiment typically presents itself in a Sternberg Paradigm.

Sternberg Figure Source

So, what does this even tell us about cognitive psychology? Experiments such as these allow us to observe the underlying cognitive processes on performance tasks. In this particular instance, these processes are hypothesized constructs. As humans, we make sense of the our observable behavior (in this case being response time) by channeling cognitive entities (e.g. working memory, serial scanning, or decision making).

In short, cognitive psychology measures behavior; however it only does so in that it derives insight into hypothesized mental processes. It aims to break cognition down into subprocesses. But how do we even know that these cognitive entities exist? Particularly because we have very little ability to measure them reliably.

What is Cognitive Neuroscience?

The subbranch of psychological science that has seen the greatest advancements within the last two decades is - you guessed it - cognitive neuroscience. The goal of cognitive neuroscience is to explain mental processes in terms of brain function. We reach for this goal with the understanding that if a cognitive process exists, it should be measurable in brain function. This approach allows us to single out individual differences in cognitive abilities, which can be related to differences in brain function. As a result, local insight is provided when addressing clinical symptoms that occur from brain dysfunction. Additional brain information brought about by neuroscientific studies on cognition can be used to decipher truth behind standing cognitive theories.

Cognitive neuroscience allows us to research questions that the human race has had for a very long time. Who knows, maybe even animals have wondered as well. It is also important to note that while today’s research approaches may appear sophisticated, they will inevitably become outdated.

In Cognitive neuroscience, we must ask ourselves if we can truly trust our senses. There are many combating beliefs in this field which makes it very unstable and ever evolving. Do you agree with empiricism, where our knowledge ascends from our senses? Or maybe you agree more along the lines of rationalism, which suggests we have innate knowledge. To put these questions in perspective, a more modern approach to this conceptualizing this dilemma may be a study of genetic influence on cognition, or the mere existence of universal grammar.

Historical Contributors

Pythagoras (570-495 BC)

This guy is seriously underrated. He contributed to this field first by studying the relationship between mathematics and music; his investigations into geometry led to the belief that number was a basic property of everything. Pythagoras inspired us to study this phenomena, which lead to the discovery that there is inherent mathematics in nature. Till this day, scientists are still questioning whether all phenomena, including the inner workings of the mind, are ordered mathematically. An example of this debacle in scientific context would be the juxtaposition between quantitative vs. qualitative methodologies. Another example would be when trying to measure complex phenomena such as love. Or, more simply put, wondering whether there is a mathematical function that relates brain activity to mental processes.

Pythagoras Image Source

Plato (427-347 BC)

This guy suggested that people have innate knowledge. His backing for this was that we have a soul. He preached that the soul is an immortal essence that has lived many lives, and through those lives lived came an accumulation of knowledge. While Plato may have thought he had it all figured out, this strange relationship between innate vs. learned knowledge (nature vs. nurture) is still up for debate.

Plato Image Source

Aristotle (384-323 BC)

This dude preached the power of self development and sensation like other living things, but he believed that the power to think and have reason is uniquely human. This assertion has been rejected by the simple existence of research methods using animal models to provide insight into human cognition. Ari believed that the heart was the center of intelligence, and that the brain was responsible for cooling the heart's blood flow. His argument for human rationalization skills came from the vast size of the human brain compared to other species, leaving us less "hot-blooded".

Aristotle Image Source

Descartes (1596-1650)