Abstract
A key epistemological difference between behaviorism and cognitivism concerns their respective attitudes toward the analysis of so-called cognitive processes into functional modules. Behaviorists generally say it is not possible. Cognitivists argue that this is an achievable goal. The question has been concretized by recent developments in brain imaging technology. A consideration of the matter suggests that technical and conceptual difficulties abound in the effort to localize “high-level cognitive functions” in narrowly circumscribed regions of the brain. Some of the most serious involve the ambiguous definition of the putative mental components that are to be localized and the generally unacknowledged nonlinear complexity of both psychological processes and the brain. In addition, the imaging techniques themselves are replete with technical difficulties that raise additional questions about this particular application, even though these wonderful machines can make extraordinary contributions to our knowledge of brain anatomy and physiology. The cumulative implication of these difficulties is that the cognitive approach to the study of scientific psychology has once again set out on a search for a chimera. New approaches to behaviorism may be required to set psychology back on the correct track.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000). Imaging cognition II: An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1–47.
Faux, S. F. (2002). Cognitive neuroscience from a behavioral perspective: A critique of chasing ghosts with Geiger counters. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 161–173.
Felleman, D. J., & Van Essen, D. C. (1991). Distributed hierarchical processing in primate visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 1, 1–47.
Hilgetag, C. C, O’Neill, M. A., & Young, M. P. (1996). Indeterminate organization of the visual system. Science, 271, 776–777.
Hilgetag, C. C, O’Neill, M. A., & Young, M. P. (2000). Hierarchical organization of macaque and cat cortical sensory systems explored with a novel network processor. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (B), 355, 71–89.
Lashley, K. S. (1950). In search of the engram. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, 4, 454–482.
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.
Ogawa, S., Lee, T. M., Nayak, A. S., & Glynn, P. (1990). Oxygenation-sensitive contrast in magnetic resonance image of rodent brain at high magnetic fields. Magnetic Resonance Medicine, 14, 68–78.
Pachella, R. G. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 41–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Uttal, W. R. (1981). A taxonomy of visual processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Uttal, W. R. (1988). On seeing forms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Uttal, W. R. (1998). Toward a new behaviorism: The case against perceptual reductionism. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Uttal, W. R. (2001). The new phrenology: The limits of localizing cognitive functions in the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Uttal, W. R. (2003). Psychomythics: Sources of artifacts and misconceptions in scientific psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Uttal, W.R. Hypothetical high-level cognitive functions cannot be localized in the brain: Another argument for a revitalized behaviorism. BEHAV ANALYST 27, 1–6 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392085
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392085