RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE, FUNCTION AND COGNITIVE MODELLING

One possible bridge between behavior and brain are cognitive models. Cognitive models are
simple mathematical formalisms that embody psychological principles and are often evaluated
by their ability to account for behavioral data. The mechanisms in these models can both be
related to behavior and to neural measures thus providing a possible bridge.
Perhaps the key theoretical challenge in cognitive neuroscience is to bridge levels of analysis,
linking brain and behavior in a mutually explanatory manner. This integration would help
answer fundamental questions like how neural activity gives rise to behavior and what basic
processes underlie unique human abilities. Unfortunately, the chasm between behavior and
neural activity is wide. Moreover, the ‘languages’ of these two types of data are different.
Behavior is measured in terms of choice and response time, whereas neural activity is
measured by spiking activity or blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal in fMRI, for
example.
Understanding the nature of human intelligence is perhaps the greatest challenge to modern
neuroscience, promising not only a comprehension of how humans have used cognition to
dominate all other life forms, but also opening the possibility of replication of our mental
faculties in the creation of systems that match or potentially exceed, our own extraordinary,
cognitive abilities. Although intelligence is usually referred to in the singular, there is
considerable evidence that it exists in multiple forms that potentially reflect different cognitive
centers.
Thus, the development of cognition throughout childhood has been shown to be divided into
the following stages:
(i) the preoperational (1–6 years), when the child’s preoccupations are almost entirely in
the psychosocial domain;
(ii) (ii) the concrete operational (7–11 years), when the child fully engages the
physical/factual domain;

1
 (iii) (iii) the formal operational (11–15), when the child engages successfully in the
hypothetical, abstract domain, while, in addition, Piaget also regarded time as a
discrete cognitive ability that enables the co-seriation of tasks
The existence of multiple intelligences is implicit in the studies of the development of cognition
throughout childhood (Piaget et al., 1970, 1973).
Our acute psychological dependence upon social interaction has led some to consider that all
higher brain functions, including our capacity for abstract reasoning and metacognition, have
evolved solely to service our need for society. Yet, in Piaget’s identification of the sequential
development of very different cognitive stages throughout childhood, the creation of the
fundamental, psychosocial concepts that are the foundations of emotional intelligence, are
confined to early years.
Individuals with ASD have difficulty in reading and expressing body language and, in severe
cases, verbal language, manifesting in these ways a profound deficit in their comprehension of
others (Frith, 2003). Yet people with ASD occasionally demonstrate astounding mental abilities
in both practical and abstract domains.

How the human brain works is still an open question, as is its implication with brain
architecture: the non-trivial structure–function relationship. The development of neuroimaging
techniques, the improvement on their processing methods and the unfolding of computational
neuroscience field have driven brain research focused on the relationship between anatomical
and functional interactions. The principal hypothesis is that the anatomic architecture
determines, but not strictly, the network dynamics meaning that part of functional connectivity
cannot be explained by considering only anatomical connectivity. This hypothesis is based not
only on human studies but also on animal models, with the advantage that they can be
correlated with genetic, histological and molecular methodologies.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG),
magnetoencephalography (MEG) and positron emission tomography (PET) are imaging
methods of macroscopic brain activity. Each of these techniques is sensitive to different
physiological processes; therefore, they have different spatio-temporal resolutions. For

2
instance, the non-invasive Fmri technique has high spatial resolution (~1 mm) and poor
temporal resolution (seconds). In contrast, EEG/MEG measures neuronal activity with excellent
temporal resolution and low spatial resolution.
The brain has been studied essentially in two time-scales: short-term (seconds to minutes) and
long-term (days to years) time-scales. The structural configuration is relatively stable across
time but can change due to the development and neuroplastic processes, such that the SC (at
macroscale) remain stable on short-term time scale while neuroplasticity can be observed on
long-term time scale.
On the other hand, we have already mentioned that FC is not time-invariant; relationships
between neural elements can quickly vary across time. FC from fMRI studies corresponds to
macroscopic scale due to the spatial resolution that is not enough to directly represent the
neuronal dynamic activity at microscopic level.
A central assumption of systems neuroscience is that the structure of the brain can predict
and/or is related to functional connectivity. This belief is derived from basic human anatomy
and biomechanics where the structure and form of body parts are directly related to their
function. The structure–function relationship is found at different scales in nature, from the
molecular composition of enzymes, the morphology of organometallics, to the collective
behavior of ant colonies.
Functional connectivity is often measured by using resting-state functional magnetic resonance
imaging (rs-fMRI) and is generally interpreted as an indirect measure of neuronal activity. Gray
matter (GM) primarily consists of neuronal and glia cell bodies.

The use of non-invasive neuroimaging provides the ability to describe and find structural and
functional networks, fostering opportunities to further understand the complexity of the
human brain. Using the multivariate approach, SBM, we found GM structural relationship
patterns and several areas in the brain where structure and function correspond. More
importantly, we also demonstrated that GM structural components are directly associated with
functional components.

3
Cognition and the brain function has implication for:
1.Emotional Intelligence and The Social Brain
2. Language development
3. Abstract reasoning
4. Lying

5. Conceptualization of space and time

6. Cognitive challenges
7. Metacognition and general intelligence
8. Practicality in construction and symbolism
9. Analysis of the material world
10. The social mind