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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
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.
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.
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.
Chandrasekhar, P.V., et al. 2008. “Neurobiological Regret and Rejoice Functions for Aversive Outcomes.” NeuroImage 39, no. 3: 1472–1484.
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.
Glasser, Matthew F., et al. 2016. “A Multi-Modal Parcellation of Human Cerebral Cortex.” Nature 536, no. 7615: 171–178.
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.
Gruber, David R. 2016a. “Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics: Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations.” Rhetoric Review 35, no. 3: 239–253.
———. 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.
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.
Huseman, Richard C. 1964. “Modern Approaches to the Aristotelian Concept of the Special Topic.” Central States Speech Journal 15, no. 1: 21–26.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics 25, no. 2: 156–177.
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.
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.
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.
Miller, Carolyn R. 1987. “Aristotle’s ‘Special Topics’ in Rhetorical Practice and Pedagogy Author(s).” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 17, no. 1: 61–70.
———. 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.
Poldrack, Russell A. 2006. “Can Cognitive Processes Be Inferred from Neuroimaging Data?” TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 10, no. 2: 59–63.
Poldrack, Russel A., et al. 2011. “The Cognitive Atlas: Toward a Knowledge Foundation for Cognitive Neuroscience.” Frontiers in Neuroscience 5: 1–3.
———. 2012. “Discovering Relations Between Mind, Brain, and Mental Disorders Using Topic Mapping.” PLoS Computational Biology 8, no. 10: 1–14.
Prelli, Lawrence J. 1989. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Ross, Derek G. 2013. “Common Topics and Commonplaces of Environmental Rhetoric.” Written Communication 30, no. 1: 91–131.
Walsh, Lynda. 2010. “The Common Topoi of STEM Discourse: An Apologia and Methodological Proposal, with Pilot Survey.” Written Communication 27, no. 1: 120–156.
Walsh, Lynda, and Andrew B. Ross. 2015. “The Visual Invention Practices of STEM Researchers: An Exploratory Topology.” Science Communication 37, no. 1: 118–139.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jack, J., Appelbaum, L.G., Beam, E., Moody, J., Huettel, S.A. (2017). Mapping Rhetorical Topologies in Cognitive Neuroscience. In: Walsh, L., Boyle, C. (eds) Topologies as Techniques for a Post-Critical Rhetoric. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51268-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51268-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-51267-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-51268-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)