Principles of Cognitive Neuroscience [Hardcover]

I am using this text for a graduate course and have read about halfway through. Overall, I've been disappointed. To be fair, cognitive neuroscience is a very interdisciplinary field and a comprehensive text has to introduce and expand on a ton of information. The field is exciting and advancing all the time, which is difficult to capture in a textbook. But this book could have been so much better. The early chapters in this text end up being poorly organized collections of key terms and their definitions, with a few brief descriptions of various studies thrown in for good measure. Very few headings separate the huge chunks of text. There are lots of images, but few charts to lend any sense of organization to connected ideas. Just my opinion, but such massive amounts of information need to be broken up and/or placed into some kind of visual hierarchy - as an introductory Cognitive Psych course might point out, highlighting the differences between various concepts aids memory for the concepts. Unfortunately, readers wade through definition after definition while the authors make little effort to connect and/or contrast concepts.

There are other study resources to complement the text - you can download a software program (which you will only have access to if you purchase a new book) for help with neuroanatomy. There are also online resources, but quizzes must first be set up by the instructor, and study quiz results are always emailed to the instructor (although this may be a setting that the instructor controls). Everyone learns in different ways, but I think this book could be better. You might end up having a good experience with this text if you have an instructor who can help reinforce the material.

I am very disappointed with this book and I feel terrible to have to give this book only 2 stars, because I was looking forward to evaluate this book as a potential text book or reference book for the cognitive science field. This is not the science material I would expect from a 2008 publication of anything seriously aimed for academics, although I'm sure some in the academia who are still in the "old school" tradition would welcome such a book. The main problem is the narration! The editors (or some of them) are desperately trying to preserve popular but certainly inaccurate notions about brain plasticity. The book successfully preserves a common Moral Fallacy, but fails to deliver modern cognitive and neuroscience. I've concentrated mainly on 3 chapters for the evaluation: 20 and 21 (language) and CH 27 (Development of the Brain). Be aware then since there are multiple editors for this book, some other parts of the book that I haven't evaluated may be OK. Much of what I've read feels more like what I would expect to read in some basic psychology books at my disposal that are at least 20 yrs old. I have many comments but below I have elaborated on an example of what I think is ultimately wrong about what I've read.

In chapter 27 there is a section about brain plasticity in the developing brain. The main theme of this section is to emphasize the important role of the environment in the developing brain. The unfortunate problem is that the editor is portraying the scientific data in a very misleading way. It uses well known and carefully chosen scientific data and experiments to deliver the following themes, as in the editor's own words: "..the brain can be modified by developmental experience", "many studies have shown that enriched early environments influence brain development, memory and the ability to learn", "effects of experience during development are most influential within a particular time window" (critical periods), and the editor takes on the nature-nurture debate: "The contribution of genes to complex human behaviors is still widely misunderstood and often exaggerated".."In any event, it is abundantly clear that nature and nurture are joint contributors to all cognitive phenotypes".

It is not that any of the above quotes are factually wrong (at least in the semantically sense), it's that they are bad characterizations and analysis of both the scientific data that the editor selects and the much science that has been left out. It seems that the editor has misunderstood some of the science and has overly exaggerated their inferences to his/her biased analysis. To begin with, doesn't the editor understand that the brain is modifiable by regular experience as well as developmental experience? If not how else can we ever learn anything new? What good is it then to explain the influence of the environment on development by simply stating that the brain is "modified by developmental experience"? The "enriched environment influences brain development" sounds like a dogma taken out of some early start program or a Sesame Street DVD intro. I think that was when the book hit rock bottom for me. This is the old half cup/full cup trick. Are we talking about "enriched environments" or "non deprived environments"? Certainly, there is some scientific evidence to suggest that some forms of deprivations of a natural habitat can negatively impact development, but to twist this and suggest that "enriched environments" influence development is totally groundless and inexcusable for a 21st century neuroscience book. The editor is echoing the same old misinterpretations and spins of such experiments (often by their original experimenters) that have been widely used to advance known popular dogmas about child development and critical periods. And finally, the editor takes on the nature-nurture debate and assures us that it is abundantly clear that nature and nurture are joint contributors to all cognitive phenotypes. It is the year 2008 and I am wondering if the editor has heard of Behavioral Genetics yet? Decades of research with Identical and fraternal twins, and adopted siblings. Probably the most robust and replicable set of laws in the field of psychology about the contributions of the genes and environment on what makes us all different from one another in terms of personality traits, skills, intelligence and so on.. The editor doesn't seem to be aware of any of this which is why he rushes to irresponsible conclusions about the role of nurture on development (which most students who are not experienced biologists will wrongly interpret as the stimulation and caring practices of the parents and their well planned enriched stimulated environments).

So what does the science the editors have selected and some other they left out does tell us about the developing brain? Here is a summary of a more informative and accurate version: Neural development is mostly guided by a genetic program (most of the brain's anatomy is already in place before any sensory inputs start to arrive from the outside world), but that this genetic program is dynamic and that some final aspects of the highly specialized wiring of the brain relies on input from the senses in order complete its final detailed wiring of the specialized circuitry of a particular sensory. Based on the evidence presented by the editor, we can only infer that this dynamic process is a kind of fine tuning ability so that neual circuitry is ensured to be optimized for a particular individual developing in a particular environment, and that this genetically controlled program operates under some expected time windows for different areas of the brain, as in the case in the mapping of the visual cortex, or as in the case of language acquisition. There is no evidence yet of any particular environment that is better then another that enhances development in some way or adds intelligence, or makes someone more social. Of course deprivation of expected natural environment during a critical period (like shutting an eye, or depriving language stimulation) can negatively alter development. None of the above is explained by the editor, and none of this will be delivered to the student, even though that is what you can safely conclude based on any scientific grounds. It would also deliver a better understanding of the genetic-environment interaction during development, which the editor never even attempts to explain except for the old "its a combination of the two". The editor completely fails at this most basic point and very important part of the book. Of course, as I mentioned before, I'm sure that there are still plenty of developmental and child psychologists that would prefer the editor's original version.

Well, this book is in awesome shape, great price everything.
It's easy to read and still has in-depth information and isn't
too 'superficial' like some other 'easy to read' books are.

The place that I ordered it from was quick and professional/
I had to withdraw from the class, but will keep the
book, it's just to interresting to just read it once!