What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes in a Complex World
Elkhonon Goldberg's groundbreaking The Executive Brain was a classic of scientific writing, revealing how the frontal lobes command the most human parts of the mind. Now he offers a completely new book, providing fresh, iconoclastic ideas about the relationship between the brain and the mind. In The New Executive Brain, Goldberg paints a sweeping panorama of cutting-edge thinking in cognitive neuroscience and neuropsychology, one that ranges far beyond the frontal lobes. Drawing on the latest discoveries, and developing complex scientific ideas and relating them to real life through many fascinating case studies and anecdotes, the author explores how the brain engages in complex decision-making; how it deals with novelty and ambiguity; and how it addresses moral choices. At every step, Goldberg challenges entrenched assumptions. For example, we know that the left hemisphere of the brain is the seat of language--but Goldberg argues that language may not be the central adaptation of the left hemisphere. Apes lack language, yet many also show evidence of asymmetric hemispheric development. Goldberg also finds that a complex interaction between the frontal lobes and the amygdale--between a recently evolved and a much older part of the brain--controls emotion, as conscious thoughts meet automatic impulses. The author illustrates this observation with a personal the difficulty he experienced when trying to pick up a baby alligator he knew to be harmless, as his amygdala battled his effort to extend his hand. The New Executive Brain , Goldberg affirms Goldberg's place as one of our most creative and insightful scientists, offering lucid writing and bold, paradigm-shifting ideas.
334 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
About the author
Elkhonon Goldberg
27 books37 followersBorn 1946, Elkhonon Goldberg is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist known for his work in hemispheric specialization and the "novelty-routinization" theory.
Goldberg studied at Moscow State University with the great neuropsychologist Alexander Luria and moved to the United States in 1974. He is currently a Clinical Professor of Neurology at New York University School of Medicine, Diplomate of The American Board of Professional Psychology in Clinical Neuropsychology, and Co-Founder and Chief Scientific Advisor of SharpBrains, an online brain fitness centre. He offers post-doctoral training in Neuropsychology at Fielding Graduate University. Elkhonon Goldberg is the Founding Director of Luria Neuroscience Institute (LNI), an organization founded with the purpose of advancing research and disseminating knowledge about the brain and the mind. He describes himself as an atheist "with agnostic tendencies".
From Wikipedia
Goldberg studied at Moscow State University with the great neuropsychologist Alexander Luria and moved to the United States in 1974. He is currently a Clinical Professor of Neurology at New York University School of Medicine, Diplomate of The American Board of Professional Psychology in Clinical Neuropsychology, and Co-Founder and Chief Scientific Advisor of SharpBrains, an online brain fitness centre. He offers post-doctoral training in Neuropsychology at Fielding Graduate University. Elkhonon Goldberg is the Founding Director of Luria Neuroscience Institute (LNI), an organization founded with the purpose of advancing research and disseminating knowledge about the brain and the mind. He describes himself as an atheist "with agnostic tendencies".
From Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
September 26, 2010
The New Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes in a Complex World, Elkhonon Goldberg
Goldberg is amazing. His stuff is generally approachable to the determined lay reader, but it is, as the description says, “rigorous.” Here is my attempt at a synopsis:
The most fascinating discussion in this book, in my opinion, is the matter of the difference between the brain’s hemispheres, with the right hemisphere being linked to novelty and the left to routinization. In fact, Goldberg formulated the novelty-routinization hypothesis of hemispheric interaction, in which the right hemisphere takes the leading role in the early stages of a new task, and the left at later stages. This does not mean tasks rise on the right and are then transferred to the left. He suggests, instead, that mental representations rise interactively in both hemispheres, but their rates of formation differ, with the right being more effective at early stages and the left in later stages. When an individual is faced with a relatively familiar cognitive task it is likely to be attracted to the left hemisphere, while a relatively novel cognitive task is likely attracted to the right, where the representations are less bounded and less specific. This probably means that the left hemisphere is organized “more like a collection of distinctive networks, each characterized by strong internal interconnectedness but with relatively high connectivity thresholds between such local networks,” and the right “more like a relatively homogeneous network.” (267) I think it is interesting, and not necessarily intuitive, that this results in more efficient long term memory formation in the left hemisphere.
One interesting element of these hemispheric differences involves the link between the right hemisphere and negative affect. Goldberg touches on this when he writes, “One has to be dissatisfied with that which is, in order to embark on the attainment of that which should be. So the seat of novelty and the seat of negative affect are logically linked together in a shared neural territory of the right hemisphere, as the negative affect drives novelty seeking. By contrast, the left hemisphere is the repository of long-term, generic knowledge and cognitive routines.” (122-123) Sure, it sounds simple when you put it that way!
To get into this in even more depth: Cortical space is allocated differently in the two hemispheres, with a “slight overrepresentation of modality-specific association cortices” (superior temporal gyrus and the premotor cortex) in the left hemisphere, and fewer heteromodal association cortices. The opposite is true for the right hemisphere, where the heteromodal association cortices include the prefrontal, inferotemporal, and inferoparietal cortices. Goldberg asks whether this causes information to be represented in slightly different ways. He also points to another hemispheric variation, in the construction of the pathway architectures. The left hemisphere is characterized by a “slightly greater reliance on short local pathways than is the right hemisphere,” which is characterized by “a slightly greater reliance on the long interregional pathways.” This would seem to point to information being processed in a different way.
Goldberg also spends time describing the difference in the dopaminergic system, a difference in neuromodulation involving the ventral tegmental area. That is, it is slightly more prevalent in the left hemisphere. It is more focal than the noradrenergic system in the right hemisphere. I can’t say I followed this very well, though this is a little more clear: “Dopaminergic pathways are more prominent in the left hemisphere and stimulation of the dopamine system in animal models produces stereotypic, repetitive behaviors reinforced in prior experience. By contrast, noradrenergic pathways are more prominent in the right hemisphere and stimulation of the noradrenergic system produces exploratory, novelty-seeking behaviors…” (79) Anyway, it all comes down to how representations are formed in the two hemispheres.
Also worth of note are the differences between the male and female brain (of course they are different!) “In the male brain the left-right differences are better articulated than in the female brain. But in the female brain the front-back differences are better articulated than in the male brain.” (135) Cognition, Goldberg says, is less lateralized in females than in males. That is, frontal lobe function is considerably less lateralized in females (or, in other words, more alike). Also, certain parts of the corpus callosum are thicker in females than males, while the longitudinal fascicule are thicker in males. So interhemispheric transmission appears more efficient in females and intrahemisphereic transmission between the frontal lobes and the posterior part of the same hemisphere is more efficient in males. I’m not quite certain what exactly this entails, and Goldberg doesn’t take the differences too far, either. Still, I couldn’t help but wonder what the implications are for female brain development as it applies to cognitive development.
The book was not all about hemispheric differences, however. Goldberg is also the original postulator of the gradiental model of the cortex, represented by “relatively continuous functional distributions along the occipitotemporal, temporoparietal, and occipitoparietal axes.” Each axis is bounded at its extremes by a pair of primary sensory projection areas. As one moves away from these extreme points, one encounters areas in charge of higher-order processing within the corresponding modalities…and as one approaches the middle of the axis, one encounters areas in charge of functional fusion between the respective modalities.” (56) This sounds intuitive enough to me, but the modular view of the cortex has been around for a long time, and it’s probably what most people imagine when they think of how the brain functions. The modular view says that there is a high degree of regional specificity for specific functions. You have probably been pulled into the modular view yourself, if you identify with Goldberg’s response to a CNN Study showing that people who are generous in given had their striatum light up in a neuroimaging study:
“The truly unfortunate thing is that the advent of functional neuroimaging has spawned a whole wave of such studies—flashy, engaging, sometimes even dramatic, creating the illusion of clarity, but devoid of theoretical cohesion and, ultimately, relatively useless in advancing our knowledge of the brain or of anything else. Such studies are often even misleading. Unlike the low-tech methods dominating much of twentieth-century psychology, the tools of new-wave neurophrenology are very expensive. Because of their high-tech glitter they create the illusion of understanding where often little or none is gained.” (110)
Goldberg challenges modularity, which is going out of style at this point, anyway, with the view that the cortex is “a relatively general-purpose device capable of assuming a broad range of functions.” (45) That, to me, sounds like the simplest definition of the gradiental model, and so I’m going to leave it at that.
The third area from the reading that I want to bring out (not that they are separate “areas,” per se…it’s more like a gradiental system!) is Goldberg’s impressive research into the frontal lobes. Clearly, everything I’ve been trying to summarize here is about the frontal lobes, but I have not treated them specifically. I was drawn, in particular, to his description of the role of the prefrontal cortex in veridical versus actor-centered decision making. Goldberg explains that very few memory tests feature a selection requirement. Instead the test taker is told specifically what to look for or do, taking the element of choice, or selection out of the picture. And yet, selection is the only way to engage the frontal cortex. Without the selection component, the frontal lobes do not engage. In animal testing – such as mazes, the animal always engages in selection, as it does not understand that something is expected, it just wants to find the food. People have selection taken away because they are just trying to guess what they are supposed to. This raises significant questions in regards to animal based memory tests.
Since the prefrontal cortex does not activate without the selection element, actor-centered decision making is crucial not only to memory, but to cognition in general. The implications here are huge. Goldberg points out that neuroscientists have based their methods on veridical decision making, and so has our entire education system.
Which brings me to what I believe is Goldberg’s most significant contribution to the field of cognitive neuroscience: that is, he pushes and challenges the field to expand beyond the flashy, pop-culture driven wow factor, and into a place where cognitive enhancement is the key to improved functioning. Goldberg believes, and I am fully on board with this, that “structured cognitive enhancement may actually change brain structure and improve its information-processing capacity.” (247) Such enhancement is to be attained through cognitive exercise. Few, I would say, have done more to contribute to bringing this fact to light, than has Goldberg. At the same time, he also points out the need for cognotropic frontal-lobe pharmacology, about which he has some interesting things to say:
“Society has been so preoccupied with saving lives, treating hallucinations, controlling seizures, and lifting depression that cognition (memory, attention, planning, problem solving) has been largely ignored. Granted, various neuroleptics, anticonvulsants, antidepressents, sedatives, and stimulants do have an effect on cognition, but it is an ancillary effect of a drug designed to treat something else.”
Alzheimer’s and other dementias, Goldberg writes, have been society’s wake up call. It will be interesting to see what other wake up calls society receives as we continue to learn about how the brain functions. One such call may well come in the form of recent studies on brain trauma, which are increasingly being brought before the public in relation to the number of tragedies coming from violent sports (most particularly football). But that is only my lay opinion.
The New Executive Brain does cover a lot of the material covered in The Executive Brain, but is definitely worth the read, if you want to dig even deeper. Goldberg writes with the authority born of years of research and experience, and he does so with an astute eye to the larger implications for what he aptly calls a complex world.
Goldberg is amazing. His stuff is generally approachable to the determined lay reader, but it is, as the description says, “rigorous.” Here is my attempt at a synopsis:
The most fascinating discussion in this book, in my opinion, is the matter of the difference between the brain’s hemispheres, with the right hemisphere being linked to novelty and the left to routinization. In fact, Goldberg formulated the novelty-routinization hypothesis of hemispheric interaction, in which the right hemisphere takes the leading role in the early stages of a new task, and the left at later stages. This does not mean tasks rise on the right and are then transferred to the left. He suggests, instead, that mental representations rise interactively in both hemispheres, but their rates of formation differ, with the right being more effective at early stages and the left in later stages. When an individual is faced with a relatively familiar cognitive task it is likely to be attracted to the left hemisphere, while a relatively novel cognitive task is likely attracted to the right, where the representations are less bounded and less specific. This probably means that the left hemisphere is organized “more like a collection of distinctive networks, each characterized by strong internal interconnectedness but with relatively high connectivity thresholds between such local networks,” and the right “more like a relatively homogeneous network.” (267) I think it is interesting, and not necessarily intuitive, that this results in more efficient long term memory formation in the left hemisphere.
One interesting element of these hemispheric differences involves the link between the right hemisphere and negative affect. Goldberg touches on this when he writes, “One has to be dissatisfied with that which is, in order to embark on the attainment of that which should be. So the seat of novelty and the seat of negative affect are logically linked together in a shared neural territory of the right hemisphere, as the negative affect drives novelty seeking. By contrast, the left hemisphere is the repository of long-term, generic knowledge and cognitive routines.” (122-123) Sure, it sounds simple when you put it that way!
To get into this in even more depth: Cortical space is allocated differently in the two hemispheres, with a “slight overrepresentation of modality-specific association cortices” (superior temporal gyrus and the premotor cortex) in the left hemisphere, and fewer heteromodal association cortices. The opposite is true for the right hemisphere, where the heteromodal association cortices include the prefrontal, inferotemporal, and inferoparietal cortices. Goldberg asks whether this causes information to be represented in slightly different ways. He also points to another hemispheric variation, in the construction of the pathway architectures. The left hemisphere is characterized by a “slightly greater reliance on short local pathways than is the right hemisphere,” which is characterized by “a slightly greater reliance on the long interregional pathways.” This would seem to point to information being processed in a different way.
Goldberg also spends time describing the difference in the dopaminergic system, a difference in neuromodulation involving the ventral tegmental area. That is, it is slightly more prevalent in the left hemisphere. It is more focal than the noradrenergic system in the right hemisphere. I can’t say I followed this very well, though this is a little more clear: “Dopaminergic pathways are more prominent in the left hemisphere and stimulation of the dopamine system in animal models produces stereotypic, repetitive behaviors reinforced in prior experience. By contrast, noradrenergic pathways are more prominent in the right hemisphere and stimulation of the noradrenergic system produces exploratory, novelty-seeking behaviors…” (79) Anyway, it all comes down to how representations are formed in the two hemispheres.
Also worth of note are the differences between the male and female brain (of course they are different!) “In the male brain the left-right differences are better articulated than in the female brain. But in the female brain the front-back differences are better articulated than in the male brain.” (135) Cognition, Goldberg says, is less lateralized in females than in males. That is, frontal lobe function is considerably less lateralized in females (or, in other words, more alike). Also, certain parts of the corpus callosum are thicker in females than males, while the longitudinal fascicule are thicker in males. So interhemispheric transmission appears more efficient in females and intrahemisphereic transmission between the frontal lobes and the posterior part of the same hemisphere is more efficient in males. I’m not quite certain what exactly this entails, and Goldberg doesn’t take the differences too far, either. Still, I couldn’t help but wonder what the implications are for female brain development as it applies to cognitive development.
The book was not all about hemispheric differences, however. Goldberg is also the original postulator of the gradiental model of the cortex, represented by “relatively continuous functional distributions along the occipitotemporal, temporoparietal, and occipitoparietal axes.” Each axis is bounded at its extremes by a pair of primary sensory projection areas. As one moves away from these extreme points, one encounters areas in charge of higher-order processing within the corresponding modalities…and as one approaches the middle of the axis, one encounters areas in charge of functional fusion between the respective modalities.” (56) This sounds intuitive enough to me, but the modular view of the cortex has been around for a long time, and it’s probably what most people imagine when they think of how the brain functions. The modular view says that there is a high degree of regional specificity for specific functions. You have probably been pulled into the modular view yourself, if you identify with Goldberg’s response to a CNN Study showing that people who are generous in given had their striatum light up in a neuroimaging study:
“The truly unfortunate thing is that the advent of functional neuroimaging has spawned a whole wave of such studies—flashy, engaging, sometimes even dramatic, creating the illusion of clarity, but devoid of theoretical cohesion and, ultimately, relatively useless in advancing our knowledge of the brain or of anything else. Such studies are often even misleading. Unlike the low-tech methods dominating much of twentieth-century psychology, the tools of new-wave neurophrenology are very expensive. Because of their high-tech glitter they create the illusion of understanding where often little or none is gained.” (110)
Goldberg challenges modularity, which is going out of style at this point, anyway, with the view that the cortex is “a relatively general-purpose device capable of assuming a broad range of functions.” (45) That, to me, sounds like the simplest definition of the gradiental model, and so I’m going to leave it at that.
The third area from the reading that I want to bring out (not that they are separate “areas,” per se…it’s more like a gradiental system!) is Goldberg’s impressive research into the frontal lobes. Clearly, everything I’ve been trying to summarize here is about the frontal lobes, but I have not treated them specifically. I was drawn, in particular, to his description of the role of the prefrontal cortex in veridical versus actor-centered decision making. Goldberg explains that very few memory tests feature a selection requirement. Instead the test taker is told specifically what to look for or do, taking the element of choice, or selection out of the picture. And yet, selection is the only way to engage the frontal cortex. Without the selection component, the frontal lobes do not engage. In animal testing – such as mazes, the animal always engages in selection, as it does not understand that something is expected, it just wants to find the food. People have selection taken away because they are just trying to guess what they are supposed to. This raises significant questions in regards to animal based memory tests.
Since the prefrontal cortex does not activate without the selection element, actor-centered decision making is crucial not only to memory, but to cognition in general. The implications here are huge. Goldberg points out that neuroscientists have based their methods on veridical decision making, and so has our entire education system.
Which brings me to what I believe is Goldberg’s most significant contribution to the field of cognitive neuroscience: that is, he pushes and challenges the field to expand beyond the flashy, pop-culture driven wow factor, and into a place where cognitive enhancement is the key to improved functioning. Goldberg believes, and I am fully on board with this, that “structured cognitive enhancement may actually change brain structure and improve its information-processing capacity.” (247) Such enhancement is to be attained through cognitive exercise. Few, I would say, have done more to contribute to bringing this fact to light, than has Goldberg. At the same time, he also points out the need for cognotropic frontal-lobe pharmacology, about which he has some interesting things to say:
“Society has been so preoccupied with saving lives, treating hallucinations, controlling seizures, and lifting depression that cognition (memory, attention, planning, problem solving) has been largely ignored. Granted, various neuroleptics, anticonvulsants, antidepressents, sedatives, and stimulants do have an effect on cognition, but it is an ancillary effect of a drug designed to treat something else.”
Alzheimer’s and other dementias, Goldberg writes, have been society’s wake up call. It will be interesting to see what other wake up calls society receives as we continue to learn about how the brain functions. One such call may well come in the form of recent studies on brain trauma, which are increasingly being brought before the public in relation to the number of tragedies coming from violent sports (most particularly football). But that is only my lay opinion.
The New Executive Brain does cover a lot of the material covered in The Executive Brain, but is definitely worth the read, if you want to dig even deeper. Goldberg writes with the authority born of years of research and experience, and he does so with an astute eye to the larger implications for what he aptly calls a complex world.
June 19, 2010
Goldberg is well known for his work on the human brain, and especially with respect to the frontal lobes. He has developed a perspective on the executive function of the brain that has earned considerable recognition. Noe necessarily a quick read, this book is a good resource to explore if one is interested in the structure and function of the human brain.
Want to read
October 12, 2015The New Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes in a Complex World was recommended by my son's neuro-psychologist as an excellent introduction into the executive functions the frontal lobes perform.
Read
April 20, 2019I have mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, it contains much interesting and valuable information about neuroscience and evolutionary biology. The author's personal story about his escape from the Soviet Union in the early 1970s is also quite interesting. On the other hand, the book succumbs to the temptations of erroneous analogical reasoning. First, it treats the frontal lobes, particularly the prefrontal cortex, as equivalent to the CEO of a corporation. Given the historical behavior of many corporate CEOs, that is not a particularly flattering analogy from the perspective of the brain. The author also analogizes the frontal lobes to a musical conductor, saying an orchestra would be lost without its leader. This again ignores history, since orchestras did not always have a conductor and, even today, smaller musical ensembles often do not.
But the book saves its most astonishing use of analogy for chapter 15. Here the book argues for a strict analogy between the operations of the human brain and the international political order. Some scientists think they are entitled to interpret political phenomena by way of analogical reasoning to certain biological or physical phenomena. I have criticized that tendency here and here. As I wrote earlier: At best, arguments by analogy only suggest areas for further study. Although analogies are a frequently used rhetorical device, they do not prove anything. This is why logicians frequently call this practice the fallacy of false or faulty analogy. See, for example, John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, 8th ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1900), 393-97 (bk. 3, chap. 20), 553-58 (bk. 5, chap. 5, §§ 6-7); W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Spectrum, 1959), 22-27; Douglas Walton, Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, Kindle ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 305-15 (§§ 9.4-9.6); Michael C. LaBossiere, 76 Fallacies, Kindle ed. (Amazon Digital Services, 2012), 120-23; and Marianne Talbot, Critical Reasoning: A Romp Through the Foothills of Logic for Complete Beginners, Kindle ed. (Metafore, 2014), Kindle loc. 2264-2307.
Had the author avoided the pitfalls of faulty analogical reasoning and struck to the field (neuroscience) in which he has expertise, I would have assigned a four- or five-star rating to his book. By making contrived analogies to fields outside of its expertise, however, the book has serious flaws as well as merits. Accordingly, I am unable to rate it.
But the book saves its most astonishing use of analogy for chapter 15. Here the book argues for a strict analogy between the operations of the human brain and the international political order. Some scientists think they are entitled to interpret political phenomena by way of analogical reasoning to certain biological or physical phenomena. I have criticized that tendency here and here. As I wrote earlier: At best, arguments by analogy only suggest areas for further study. Although analogies are a frequently used rhetorical device, they do not prove anything. This is why logicians frequently call this practice the fallacy of false or faulty analogy. See, for example, John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, 8th ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1900), 393-97 (bk. 3, chap. 20), 553-58 (bk. 5, chap. 5, §§ 6-7); W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Spectrum, 1959), 22-27; Douglas Walton, Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, Kindle ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 305-15 (§§ 9.4-9.6); Michael C. LaBossiere, 76 Fallacies, Kindle ed. (Amazon Digital Services, 2012), 120-23; and Marianne Talbot, Critical Reasoning: A Romp Through the Foothills of Logic for Complete Beginners, Kindle ed. (Metafore, 2014), Kindle loc. 2264-2307.
Had the author avoided the pitfalls of faulty analogical reasoning and struck to the field (neuroscience) in which he has expertise, I would have assigned a four- or five-star rating to his book. By making contrived analogies to fields outside of its expertise, however, the book has serious flaws as well as merits. Accordingly, I am unable to rate it.
September 4, 2020
Brilliant, packed with information, innovative, and to-the-point. I very much appreciate Goldberg's realistic approach to understanding the lobes. Thanks to Goldberg's realism, his model of the frontal lobes are well established. The novelty-routinization theory (right lobe processes novelty in the environment; left lobe concretizes the new info) of the lobes is so far the best established theory of the lobes' specialization I've come across. The theory fits for understanding the human and animal brain with consistency. The language and spatial-perception specialization theory of the lobes excludes animals (as they can't speak human languages) and thus erodes the animal-human continuity perspective of neuroscience and ultimately evolution itself. The language and spatial-perception theory is a bad theory and has little utility in understanding pathologies and brain diseases (such as Alzheimer's, Amnesia etc.). On the other hand, Goldberg's theory of novelty and routinization not only fits evolutionary standards but allows for usage in understanding our brain via animal brains and helps understand brain pathologies. Even further, Goldberg's model has further philosophical implications that we see the world in the dimensions of order (left lobe; routinization) and chaos (right lobe; order) and that balance is achieved between both lobes, very similar to the taoist concept of the yin-yang and "the way."
The learning theory: Goldberg suggests that the right lobe keeps a "mean" of all previous actions as a reference point for action during times of ambiguity and chaos; it keeps the average of most used actions during times of trouble in the past. It can be imagined as a computational device that spits out the best possible and most general response to novelty based on past decisions, a mean of all decisions. The left lobe on the other hand, takes information from the right lobe and concretizes it into a firm point to use when needed for specific situations that call for that specific action to be taken. Goldberg associates this lobe as a scatter-point plot, where new information added doesn't erase older information. This is where the learning process lies. The right lobe receives the novelty from the environment, like a sponge and reacts in a very broad manner. The lobe then passes the info to the left hemisphere to be structured into order; here lies the (theoretical) learning process. On a side note, I suspect this is what the brain is doing when we are dreaming at night; the right lobe may be passing info its been tracking silently throughout the day to it's left partner so that it can analyze the information and integrate it.
The learning theory: Goldberg suggests that the right lobe keeps a "mean" of all previous actions as a reference point for action during times of ambiguity and chaos; it keeps the average of most used actions during times of trouble in the past. It can be imagined as a computational device that spits out the best possible and most general response to novelty based on past decisions, a mean of all decisions. The left lobe on the other hand, takes information from the right lobe and concretizes it into a firm point to use when needed for specific situations that call for that specific action to be taken. Goldberg associates this lobe as a scatter-point plot, where new information added doesn't erase older information. This is where the learning process lies. The right lobe receives the novelty from the environment, like a sponge and reacts in a very broad manner. The lobe then passes the info to the left hemisphere to be structured into order; here lies the (theoretical) learning process. On a side note, I suspect this is what the brain is doing when we are dreaming at night; the right lobe may be passing info its been tracking silently throughout the day to it's left partner so that it can analyze the information and integrate it.
June 29, 2022
Brilliant, packed with information, innovative, and to-the-point. I very much appreciate Goldberg's realistic approach to understanding the lobes. Thanks to Goldberg's realism, his model of the frontal lobes are well established. The novelty-routinization theory (right lobe processes novelty in the environment; left lobe concretizes the new info) of the lobes is so far the best established theory of the lobes' specialization I've come across. The theory fits for understanding the human and animal brain with consistency. The language and spatial-perception specialization theory of the lobes excludes animals (as they can't speak human languages) and thus erodes the animal-human continuity perspective of neuroscience and ultimately evolution itself. The language and spatial-perception theory is a bad theory and has little utility in understanding pathologies and brain diseases (such as Alzheimer's, Amnesia etc.). On the other hand, Goldberg's theory of novelty and routinization not only fits evolutionary standards but allows for usage in understanding our brain via animal brains and helps understand brain pathologies. Even further, Goldberg's model has further philosophical implications that we see the world in the dimensions of order (left lobe; routinization) and chaos (right lobe; order) and that balance is achieved between both lobes, very similar to the taoist concept of the yin-yang and "the way."
The learning theory: Goldberg suggests that the right lobe keeps a "mean" of all previous actions as a reference point for action during times of ambiguity and chaos; it keeps the average of most used actions during times of trouble in the past. It can be imagined as a computational device that spits out the best possible and most general response to novelty based on past decisions, a mean of all decisions. The left lobe on the other hand, takes information from the right lobe and concretizes it into a firm point to use when needed for specific situations that call for that specific action to be taken. Goldberg associates this lobe as a scatter-point plot, where new information added doesn't erase older information. This is where the learning process lies. The right lobe receives the novelty from the environment, like a sponge and reacts in a very broad manner. The lobe then passes the info to the left hemisphere to be structured into order; here lies the (theoretical) learning process. On a side note, I suspect this is what the brain is doing when we are dreaming at night; the right lobe may be passing info its been tracking silently throughout the day to its left partner so that it can analyze the information and integrate it.
The learning theory: Goldberg suggests that the right lobe keeps a "mean" of all previous actions as a reference point for action during times of ambiguity and chaos; it keeps the average of most used actions during times of trouble in the past. It can be imagined as a computational device that spits out the best possible and most general response to novelty based on past decisions, a mean of all decisions. The left lobe on the other hand, takes information from the right lobe and concretizes it into a firm point to use when needed for specific situations that call for that specific action to be taken. Goldberg associates this lobe as a scatter-point plot, where new information added doesn't erase older information. This is where the learning process lies. The right lobe receives the novelty from the environment, like a sponge and reacts in a very broad manner. The lobe then passes the info to the left hemisphere to be structured into order; here lies the (theoretical) learning process. On a side note, I suspect this is what the brain is doing when we are dreaming at night; the right lobe may be passing info its been tracking silently throughout the day to its left partner so that it can analyze the information and integrate it.
November 24, 2019
Fascinating read as a huge brain and neuropsychological nerd. Also a LOT easier read than Mesulam in grad school. Dr Goldberg gives an interesting framework for understanding more broadly the organization of the brain, which is also hugely helpful when you dive into specifics. The last three chapters got weird, one because it became very theoretical and computational (although he does warn you to skip it if that is not your cup of tea), the next because he takes a moment to compare his theory of brain organization to the political/governmental organizations around the world, and...well I guess the epilogue isn’t that weird, I just have no context for his call to arms for better scientific approaches and paradigms in cognitive neuroscience research.
January 20, 2019
Well written exploration of the functions of the human brain, focusing on the frontal lobes, the "executive brain." The grounded firmly in current neuroscience, Goldberg challenges some of the current assumptions and theories, but offers alternative ideas and how researchers might test his alternative ideas. I could see this being used as a text book, but found it mostly accessible - I did struggle with my incomplete understanding of neuro-anatomy, but those periods were relatively brief. I recommend this book.
August 12, 2017
¡Excelente!
December 9, 2020
Good!!
Very interesting approach on the understanding of the brain.
Although i have liked to see more on the brain gymnastics side.
Very interesting approach on the understanding of the brain.
Although i have liked to see more on the brain gymnastics side.
August 2, 2012
I read portions of Dr. Goldberg's "The New Executive Brain:Frontal Lobes in a Complex World" when I first purchased the book several years ago.
Now I am attempting to read the whole book including the more challenging chapters. As a result, I am finding the book much more interesting this time around.
The book is about the frontal lobes - known to many as the part of the brain responsible for higher level/executive functions like planning and goal setting. Dr. Goldberg writes that it is the prefrontal lobes that make us "uniquely human" and is the part of the brain responsible for performing the most advanced and complex functions of the brain.
My favorite part of the book was Dr. Goldberg's description of ADHD and how attention functions likes a set of stage lights.
This is a very fascinating book.
Now I am attempting to read the whole book including the more challenging chapters. As a result, I am finding the book much more interesting this time around.
The book is about the frontal lobes - known to many as the part of the brain responsible for higher level/executive functions like planning and goal setting. Dr. Goldberg writes that it is the prefrontal lobes that make us "uniquely human" and is the part of the brain responsible for performing the most advanced and complex functions of the brain.
My favorite part of the book was Dr. Goldberg's description of ADHD and how attention functions likes a set of stage lights.
This is a very fascinating book.
July 9, 2016
Goldberg, as a major neuroscientist having worked on various aspects of the frontal lobes, presents lots of evidence for an anterior-posterior axis in the brain with a more nuanced understanding of the usual right-left lateralization. He brings together his and others' research, anecdotes, and his professional musings and experiences in several interesting chapters. While some of his comments are very speculative, especially the last chapter on society, his ideas are well worth a consideration. I find his discussion to resonant with diffuse and focused thinking as presented by Drs. Barbara Oakley (Oakland University) and Terrence Sejnowski (Salk Institute). The book is set for more advanced students and those in medically related fields (but not necessarily a focus in neuroscience) in mind. The book may be a bit of a challenge but it is well worth it.
January 7, 2017
Anche per profani uno straordinario viaggio alla scoperta delle attuali conoscenze sul funzionamento del cervello. Utilissimo per svelare la sua complessità e per sfatare finalmente il mito della separazione tra corpo e anima...
August 12, 2013
Essential book to start to understand our brain, i.e., who we, humans beings, are.
Read
May 20, 2016A- ottimo
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews