Theories of Function
Theories of frontal lobe function can be differentiated into four categories:
- Single-process theories. Posit "that damage to a single process or system is responsible for a number of different dysexecutive symptoms” (Burgess, 2003, p. 309).
- Multi-process theories. Propose “that the frontal lobe executive system consists of a number of components that typically work together in everyday actions “ (Burgess, 2003, p. 310).
- Construct-led theories. Assume “that most if not all frontal functions can be explained by one construct (homogeneity of function) such as working memory or inhibition” (Stuss, 1999, p. 348; cf. Burgess & Simons, 2005).
- Single-symptom theories. Suggest that a specific dysexecutive symptom (e.g., confabulation) is related to the processes and construct of the underlying structures (cf. Burgess & Simons, 2005).
Stuss (1999) suggests a differentiation into two categories according to homogeneity and heterogeneity of function.
Further theoretical approaches to frontal lobe function include:
- Grafman's managerial knowledge units (MKU) / structured event complex (SEC) approach (cf. Wood & Grafman, 2003)
- Miller & Cohen's integrative theory of prefrontal functioning (e.g. Miller & Cohen, 2001)
- Rolls's stimulus-reward approach and Stuss's anterior attentional functions (Burgess & Simons, 2005; Burgess, 2003; Burke, 2007).
It may be highlighted that the theories described above differ in their focus on certain processes/systems or construct-lets. Stuss (1999) remarks that the question of homogeneity (single construct) or heterogeneity (multiple processes/systems) of function “may represent a problem of semantics and/or incomplete functional analysis rather than an unresolvable dichotomy” (p. 348). However, further research will show if a unified theory of frontal lobe function that fully accounts for the diversity of functions will be available.
Read more about this topic: Frontal Lobe
Famous quotes containing the words theories of, theories and/or function:
“The real trouble about women is that they must always go on trying to adapt themselves to men’s theories of women, as they always have done. When a woman is thoroughly herself, she is being what her type of man wants her to be. When a woman is hysterical it’s because she doesn’t quite know what to be, which pattern to follow, which man’s picture of woman to live up to.”
—D.H. (David Herbert)
“In the course of a life devoted less to living than to reading, I have verified many times that literary intentions and theories are nothing more than stimuli and that the final work usually ignores or even contradicts them.”
—Jorge Luis Borges (1899–1986)
“We are thus able to distinguish thinking as the function which is to a large extent linguistic.”
—Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–1934)