Cited by 74Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchResilience and Mental Health

Structure-function relationships behind the phenomenon of cognitive resilience in neurology: insights for neuroscience and medicine.

Open access
Rudrauf, David·2014·Advances in Neuroscience

Abstract

The phenomenon of cognitive resilience, that is, the dynamical preservation of normal functions despite neurological disorders, demonstrates that cognition can be highly robust to devastating brain injury. Here, cognitive resilience is considered across a range of neurological conditions. Simple computational models of structure-function relationships are used to discuss hypotheses about the neural mechanisms of resilience. Resilience expresses functional redundancies in brain networks and suggests a process of dynamic rerouting of brain signals. This process is underlined by a global renormalization of effective connectivity, capable of restoring information transfer between spared brain structures via alternate pathways. Local mechanisms of synaptic plasticity mediate the renormalization at the lowest level of implementation, but it is also driven by top-down cognition, with a key role of self-awareness in fostering resilience. The presence of abstraction layers in brain computation and networking is hypothesized to account for the renormalization process. Future research directions and challenges are discussed regarding the understanding and control of resilience based on multimodal neuroimaging and computational neuroscience. The study of resilience will illuminate ways by which the brain can overcome adversity and help inform prevention and treatment strategies. It is relevant to combating the negative neuropsychological impact of aging and fostering cognitive enhancement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2014/462765

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The FoC must be virtual, in roughly the sense of Virtual Reality.

    “This strongly suggests that it must also be virtual, in roughly the sense in which the word is used in “Virtual Reality””

    From The Projective Consciousness Model and Phenomenal Selfhood (2018) · cites this paper as Rudrauf, 2014

    Section 3.8 proposes that the mind is a virtual entity, and Section 3.7 describes an internally rendered space that frames experience of the world and self. These passages support a qualified sense of virtual experience, but the paper presents virtualization as a hypothesis, not a necessity, and does not explicitly equate it with the sense used in “Virtual Reality.” Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The brain is a kind of biological computer, among the other things it is.

    “The brain does indeed seem to be a kind of biological computer, among the other things it is (see Rudrauf, 2014).”

    From The Projective Consciousness Model and Phenomenal Selfhood (2018) · cites this paper as Rudrauf, 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 143 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. A. Luria, The Man with a Shattered World: The History of a Brain Wound, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1987.
  2. W. Penfield, "Neurophysiological basis of the higher func- tions of the nervous system, " in Handbook of Physiology; A Critical, Comprehensive Presentation of Physiological Knowledge and Concepts, L. S. Jefferson, A. D. Cherrington, and H. M. Goodman, Eds., vol. 6, p. 1254, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1960.
  3. H. Damasio and A. Damasio, Lesion Analysis in Neuropsychol- ogy, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1989.
  4. S. Laureys and G. Tononi, The Neurology of Consciousness, Academic Press, London, UK, 2009.
  5. J. Babinski, "Anosognosia, " The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, vol. 51, article 70, 1920.
  6. J. Parvizi, G. W. van Hoesen, and A. Damasio, "Selective pathological changes of the periaqueductal gray matter in Alzheimer's disease, " Annals of Neurology, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 344-353, 2000.
  7. P. Comon and C. Jutten, Handbook of Blind Source Separation, Independent Component Analysis and Applications, Academic Press, Oxford, UK, 2010.
  8. D. O. Hebb, "Distinctive features of learning in the higher animal, " in Brain Mechanisms and Learning, J. F. Delafresnaye, Ed., Oxford University Press, London, UK, 1961.
  9. K. I. Diamantras and S. Y. Kung, Principal Component Neural Networks, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
  10. T. Cover and J. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA edition, 1991.
  11. R. C. Aster, B. Borchers, and C. H. Thurber, Parameter Estima- tion and Inverse Problems, Elsevier, 2nd edition, 2012.
  12. D. Neumann, Connectivity of the brain from magnetic resonance imaging [Ph.D. dissertation], California Institute of Technology, 2010, http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechTHESIS:04282010- 153942989.
  13. D. Rudrauf, A. Lutz, D. Cosmelli, J.-P. Lachaux, and M. Le Van Quyen, "From autopoiesis to neurophenomenology: Francisco Varela's exploration of the biophysics of being, " Biological Research, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 27-65, 2003.
  14. P. S. Churchland and T. J. Sejnowski, The Computational Brain, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1992.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rudrauf, D.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Rudrauf, David
Venue
Advances in Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-08-04
Volume
2014
Pages
1-28
ISSN
  • 2314-789X (ISSN-L)
  • 2356-6787
OpenAlex
W2031042133
Cited by
74
References
143
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3
FWCI
2.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Advances in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
Keywords
cognitive resilience, structure-function relationship, brain injury, functional redundancy, effective connectivity, synaptic plasticity, self-awareness, abstraction layer, brain computation, cognitive aging, cognitive enhancement, cognitive modeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review