Jonathan Cohen

One hypothesis concerning the human dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is that it functions, in part, to signal the occurrence of conflicts in information processing, thereby triggering compensatory adjustments in cognitive control. Since this idea was first proposed, a great deal of relevant empirical evidence has accrued. This evidence has largely corroborated the conflict-monitoring hypothesis, and some very recent work has provided striking new support for the theory. At the same time, other findings have posed specific challenges, especially concerning the way the theory addresses the processing of errors. Recent research has also begun to shed light on the larger function of the ACC, suggesting some new possibilities concerning how conflict monitoring might fit into the cingulate's overall role in cognition and action

This chapter presents a theory of prefrontal cortex function using the connectionist computational modeling framework. This modeling approach involves three components: computational analysis of the critical processing mechanisms required for cognitive control; use of neurobiologically plausible principles of information processing; and implementation and simulation of cognitive tasks and behavioral performance. The chapter describes behavioral and neuroimaging data on healthy young adults that validate critical components of the model. It then summarizes the application of the model to the clinical domain. These studies highlight the power of the cognitive neuroscience approach by demonstrating how a single, integrated account of PFC function can capture a wide range of data from different methodologies and multiple populations.

The law has taken a long-standing interest in the mind. Cognitive neuroscience, the study of the mind through the brain, has gained prominence in part as a result of the advent of functional neuroimaging as a widely used tool for psychological research. Existing legal principles make virtually no assumptions about the neural bases of criminal behavior, and as a result they can comfortably assimilate new neuroscience without much in the way of conceptual upheaval: new details, new sources of evidence, but nothing for which the law is fundamentally unprepared. Neuroscience challenges ultimately reshape our intuitive sense of justice. It draws a familiar distinction between the consequentialist justification for state punishment, according to which punishment is merely an instrument for promoting future social welfare, and the retributivist justification for punishment, according to which the principal aim of punishment is to give people what they deserve based on their past actions.