g., Plaut & Shallice, 1993). Despite, however, the fruits of such epistemic changes (Lambon Ralph, 2004) to this day many cognitive neuropsychologists adhere to the original epistemological principles of the field either implicitly (see Harley, 2004 for a critical review), or explicitly

(Caramazza & Coltheart, 2006). Moreover, while some neuropsychologists welcome the insights of other neuroscientific methods, such as functional neuroimaging (e.g., Cooper & Shallice, 2010), others reject their application to neuropsychology as a neo-localizationist attempt to elucidate Panobinostat clinical trial the mind–brain relation (Coltheart, 2006; Harley, 2004; Page, 2006). This adherence to outdated principles of mental and brain functioning, and the associated reluctance to engage fully with recent methodological developments in the neurosciences may be at least partly responsible for the non-prominent position of neuropsychology among the contemporary neurosciences. Although it would be a mistake to assume that cognitive neuroscience shares no epistemological assumptions with cognitive neuropsychology (see below), cognitive neuroscientists differ from traditional cognitive neuropsychologists in both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ they study the mind–brain interface. The advent of powerful methods of investigating the

AZD3965 neural basis of the mind in vivo have allowed cognitive neuroscientists to expand their enquiries to topics that far exceeded the traditional topics of neuropsychology, e.g., language, semantic processing and memory. Instead, topics such as emotion and empathy are now considered mainstream areas of cognitive neuroscience research. At the theoretical level, the assumption prevailing until the early 90s to the effect that the human mind can be understood by examining exclusively cognitive functions has undergone considerable criticism (see for example Fotopoulou, 2010; Fotopoulou, Conway & Pfaff, 2012). Following some extraordinary discoveries, e.g., mirror neurons in the macaque click here monkey (Di Pellegrino, Fadiga, Fogassi, Gallese & Rizzolatti, 1992), and other similar insights, a diverse and growing community of researchers views

mental abilities as defined also by emotions and motivation, as embedded in the acting, sensing and feeling body, and as subject to intricate couplings between organisms and their interpersonal, social and technological environments (e.g., Benedetti, 2010; Damasio, 1994; Decety & Ickes, 2009; Frith & Frith, 2010; Knoblich, Thornton, Grosjean & Shiffrar, 2006; LeDoux, 1996; Panksepp, 1998; Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004). Perhaps more important to the change that took place in ‘what’ cognitive neuroscientists study, is the dramatic developments in ‘how’ they study the brain, and thus what kind of knowledge about brain–mind relations they can arrive at. Cognitive neuroscience does not need to depend on insights from the injured brain as neuropsychology does.