Advertisement

Mapping Rhetorical Topologies in Cognitive Neuroscience

  • Jordynn Jack
  • L. Gregory Appelbaum
  • Elizabeth Beam
  • James Moody
  • Scott A. Huettel
Chapter

Abstract

Many tools that neuroscientists use to trace the complex topography of the human brain draw on the neuroscience literature to yield “metanalyses” or “syntheses of data.” These approaches conflate rhetorical connections in the literature with physical connections in the brain. By contrast, the model presented in this chapter seeks not a topography of the brain but a topology of neuroscience. A social network analysis of titles and abstracts for cognitive neuroscience articles yields a topology of brain regions and functions. This map can help researchers identify underresearched areas (e.g., the thalamus) or areas that are oversaturated (e.g., the amygdala). The map also helps researchers identify subdisciplines, such as “neuroeconomics,” that have not yet integrated with the broader field—“islands” where rhetorical work could yield benefits.

Keywords

Special Topic Anterior Cingulate Cortex Common Topic Social Network Analysis Cognitive Neuroscience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Beam, Elizabeth, Gregory Appelbaum, Jordynn Jack, James Moody, and Scott A. Huettel. 2014. “Mapping the Semantic Structure of Cognitive Neuroscience.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26, no. 9: 1949–1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloch, Joel. 2010. “A Concordance-Based Study of the Use of Reporting Verbs as Rhetorical Devices in Academic Papers.” Journal of Writing Research 2, no. 2: 219–244.Google Scholar
  3. Boettiger, C.A., et al. 2007. “Immediate Reward Bias in Humans: Fronto-Parietal Networks and a Role for the Catechol-O-methyltransferase 158(Val/Val) Genotype.” Journal of Neuroscience 27, no. 52: 14383–14391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandrasekhar, P.V., et al. 2008. “Neurobiological Regret and Rejoice Functions for Aversive Outcomes.” NeuroImage 39, no. 3: 1472–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fan, Shelly. 2016. “Scientists Complete the Most Detailed Map of the Brain Ever.” SingularityHub, July 31. http://singularityhub.com/2016/07/31/scientists-complete-the-most-detailed-map-of-the-brain-ever.
  6. Glasser, Matthew F., et al. 2016. “A Multi-Modal Parcellation of Human Cerebral Cortex.” Nature 536, no. 7615: 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gross, Alan G., Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael S. Reidy. 2002. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gruber, David R. 2016a. “Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics: Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations.” Rhetoric Review 35, no. 3: 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2016b. “The Extent of Engagement, the Means of Invention: Measuring Debate About Mirror Neurons in the Humanities and Social Sciences.” Journal of Science Communication 15, no. 2: 1–17.Google Scholar
  10. Heinen, S.J., et al. 2006. “An Oculomotor Decision Process Revealed by Function-al Magnetic Resonance Imaging.” Journal of Neuroscience 26, no. 52: 13515–13522.Google Scholar
  11. Huseman, Richard C. 1964. “Modern Approaches to the Aristotelian Concept of the Special Topic.” Central States Speech Journal 15, no. 1: 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  13. Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics 25, no. 2: 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, Jenell and Melissa Littlefield. 2011. “Lost and Found in Translation: Popular Neuroscience in the Emerging Neurodisciplines.” In Sociological Reflections on the Neurosciences, ed. Martyn Pickersgill and Ira Van Keulen. 279–297. Wagon Lane: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  15. Kanwisher, Nancy, Josh McDermott, and Marvin M. Chun. “The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception.” The Journal of Neuroscience 17, no. 11: 4302–4311.Google Scholar
  16. Levallois, Clement, John A. Clithero, Paul Wouters, Ale Smidts, and Scott A. Huettel. 2012. “Translating Upwards: Linking the Neural and Social Sciences Via Neuroeconomics.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13: 789–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller, Carolyn R. 1987. “Aristotle’s ‘Special Topics’ in Rhetorical Practice and Pedagogy Author(s).” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 17, no. 1: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2000. “The Aristotelian Topos: Hunting for Novelty.” In Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric, ed. Alan G. Gross and Arthur E. Walzer. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Poldrack, Russell A. 2006. “Can Cognitive Processes Be Inferred from Neuroimaging Data?” TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 10, no. 2: 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Poldrack, Russel A., et al. 2011. “The Cognitive Atlas: Toward a Knowledge Foundation for Cognitive Neuroscience.” Frontiers in Neuroscience 5: 1–3.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2012. “Discovering Relations Between Mind, Brain, and Mental Disorders Using Topic Mapping.” PLoS Computational Biology 8, no. 10: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prelli, Lawrence J. 1989. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ross, Derek G. 2013. “Common Topics and Commonplaces of Environmental Rhetoric.” Written Communication 30, no. 1: 91–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Walsh, Lynda. 2010. “The Common Topoi of STEM Discourse: An Apologia and Methodological Proposal, with Pilot Survey.” Written Communication 27, no. 1: 120–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Walsh, Lynda, and Andrew B. Ross. 2015. “The Visual Invention Practices of STEM Researchers: An Exploratory Topology.” Science Communication 37, no. 1: 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yeo, B.T. Thomas, et al. 2011. “The Organization of the Human Cerebral Cortex Estimated by Intrinsic Functional Connectivity.” Journal of Neurophysiology 106, no. 3: 1125–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordynn Jack
    • 1
  • L. Gregory Appelbaum
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Beam
    • 3
  • James Moody
    • 4
  • Scott A. Huettel
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of English and Comparative LiteratureUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of SociologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Department of Psychology and NeuroscienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations