Нейропсихологические и нейробиологические основы восстановления высших корковых функций. Модулярная теория VS теория системной и динамической локализации функций

Abstract

Background. Neuropsychology and neuroscience solve a number of general issues concerning the relationship between brain and psyche, the principles of the structural and functional brain organization, the cerebral basis of mental processes, patterns of damage and recovery of complex behavioral systems. Neuroscientific basis for higher brain function recovery allows us to explain the regularities of neuroplasticity. The neuropsychological basis makes it possible to build an adequate programme of neuropsychological rehabilitation, taking into account not only psychological but also biological patterns. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen the integration of neuroscientific and neuropsychological points of views in this domain. Objective. The study aims to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of modular theory and the theory of system and dynamic localization of functions in solving the question of structural and functional brain organization and their reflection in approaches to neuropsychological rehabilitation. Methods. Comparative analysis and the method of generalization were applied. Results. Modular theory and the theory of system and dynamic localization of functions have a number of common key points. 1. The principle of the system (distributed) organization of higher cortical functions. 2. Horizontal-vertical structure of higher brain functions. 3. Сortical function is the constellation of factors/modules. 4 Functional unit (factor/module) is a structural element of different brain systems. 5. Damage of a functional unit leads to a selective damage of a certain group of cognitive processes. Theories differ in understanding the content of a functional unit of a brain, which leads to differing understandings of the typology in the ways to recovery. The study considers the role of subcortical structures in providing behavioral automatisms. The paper shows the importance of the intact conduction pathways in making rehabilitation prognosis. Conclusion. The study reveals limitations of the concept of factor in explaining the variability and dissociative picture of a neuropsychological symptom. The content of factor as well as its structural elements are to be revised and described. Certain statements of the theory of system and dynamic localization of functions have to be modified in order to reflect the regularities of neuroplasticity in the methodology of neuropsychological rehabilitation.