Abstract
Cognition is the most complex function of the brain. When exploring the inner workings of cognitive processes, it is crucial to understand the complexity of the brain’s dynamics. This paper aims to describe the integrated framework of the cognitive function, seen as the result of organization and interactions between several systems and subsystems. We briefly describe several organizational concepts, spanning from the reductionist hierarchical approach, up to the more dynamic theory of open complex systems. The homeostatic regulation of the mechanisms responsible for cognitive processes is showcased as a dynamic interplay between several anticorrelated mechanisms, which can be found at every level of the brain’s organization, from molecular and cellular level to large-scale networks (e.g., excitation-inhibition, long-term plasticity-long-term depression, synchronization-desynchronization, segregation-integration, order-chaos). We support the hypothesis that cognitive function is the consequence of multiple network interactions, integrating intricate relationships between several systems, in addition to neural circuits.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
From the concept of “diaschisis” introduced by von Monakov in 1914 to the novel idea of alterations of brain connectomics [1], cognitive dysfunction can be described as an imbalance of all three levels of brain’s structural and functional organization: molecular/cellular level, local circuits’ level, and large-scale network level. Each one of these levels interacts dynamically with the rest and presents characteristics of an open complex system. Because of this, cognitive function can be regarded as a result of multiple systems and subsystems interactions, while cognitive dysfunction can be seen as a result of altered interactions. From this perspective, cognitive function represents more than neural connectivity—it implies the interaction between neural networks and other network types, namely the following: gene, protein interactions, metabolic, and neurotransmitters’ or neurotrophic factors’ network; all organized in a “broadcasted neuroconnectomics” [2]. Additionally, all three levels of brain organization present homeostatic mechanisms that can be regarded as a dynamic interplay between different anticorrelated processes. From this point of view, cognitive dysfunction can be regarded as the imbalance of the interplay between anticorrelated processes that characterize neural connectivity, such as synchronization-desynchronization, integration-segregation, stability-flexibility, and order-chaos.
According to these concepts, this paper is organized into three parts:
-
1
Cognitive function as the result of multiple systems and subsystems interaction, in which the traditional reductionist approach of cognitive function is presented in opposition with the open systems approach. The philosophical theory of “holarchy,” along with the more recently introduced managerial term of “holacracy,” is further presented as examples for different systems’ organization.
-
2
Cognitive function as the result of neural connectivity, presented as dynamic system interplay between different anticorrelated processes. This section describes the complex network theory in the framework of critical brain hypothesis.
-
3
Cognitive function as the result of brain connectivity, which is based on the previously described theory of the interplay between molecular/cellular level, local circuits’ level, and large-scale network level. This section describes the interaction between neuronal networks and the other types of networks, with the derived implications upon cognitive function.
Cognitive function as a result of multiple systems and subsystems interaction
According to Urlic Neisser, often viewed as the founder of cognitive psychology, cognition represents a dynamic process that “involves all mechanisms by which sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used” [3]. Still influenced by the reductionist approach developed by René Descartes in the seventeenth century—reducing a system into its constitutive elements—cognitive psychology commonly analyzes the underlying cognitive processes independently: memory, attention, and executive function, along with their subdomains. However, general tendencies towards incorporating this classical view into a more holistic approach are particularly prominent in cognitive neuroscience research. Systems biology was first developed by von Bertalanffy in 1972 to study the interactions between different components of biological systems. Born as an antithesis to reductionism and behaviorism, general systems theory (GST) was based on the Aristotelean view that “the whole is something over and above its parts and not just the sum of them all”. This concept, briefly defined as emergence, together with other phenomena such as non-linearity, self-organization, and universality, is considered to be the main property of complex systems [4, 5].
Another holistic approach, this time in more philosophical terms, but complementary to systems biology, was described by Arthur Koestler in the book “The Ghost in the Machine” [6]. In Koestler’s view, holons are all units of a system characterized by dual behavior—they act both as autonomous individuals and as part of a more complex structure. They are organized in a multi-level holarchy, generated by their vertical interactions with super- and sub-systems components, and horizontal interactions with other parallel systems. The vertical interactions imply control by superordinate units, but, differently from the classical reductionist approach, bottom-up influences are also recognized. Holacracy, derived from the term of holarchy, is a new concept developed in management, which implies self-organization and decentralized management [7, 8].
In complex network theory—a framework for the study of systems biology—both types of organization, hierarchical and self-organization, are recognized [9, 10]. Currently, the terms of top-down and bottom-up “modulation” are preferred to “control,” and there is a highlight on the dynamics of the constitutive horizontal processes/ interactions [11, 12].
The brain is considered to be characterized by a hierarchical structure with three levels of organization: the cellular and molecular level, the circuitry level, and the large-scale network level, all of which are implicated both in maintaining endogenous homeostasis and in pathophysiological processes [13]. These levels are inter-correlated; alterations that directly affect the cellular and molecular level also affect the circuitry and dynamic network levels and vice versa (Fig. 1).
In cognition, contrasting with the initial theory of independent dynamical processes, there is continuous coordination and switch between multiple sub-processes of the memory, attention, and executive function, modulated by mind wandering and metacognition. Metacognition is related to “awareness, understanding, control and manipulation of the individual cognitive processes,” or briefly, cognition about cognition. It has been associated with conscious, reflective awareness which helps individuals to adapt their perception, cognitive processes, and behavior in order to improve performance [14,15,16]. Apparently anticorrelated with metacognition, mind-wandering or self-generated thoughts represent the shifting of attention from external or internal tasks to unrelated thoughts and feelings. Far from being just a flow of undirected ruminations, mind wandering has an indispensable role in autobiographical planning, creative problem solving, and spontaneously monitoring of own thoughts. By this impact upon cognitive processes, mind wandering is of great importance for both consciousness and flexibility of cognition, being in a dynamic interplay with metacognitive activity [17,18,19,20,21]. Behind the interconnections between all cognitive processes and their subdomains, there is also an intimate intertwinement with other information processing systems, such as perception, emotions, and language (Fig. 2).
Cognitive function as a result of neural connectivity—a dynamic system interplay between different anticorrelated processes
It has been generally accepted that critical dynamics is a fundamental characteristic of the brain’s behavior. In other words, neurons and networks operate near a critical point, in between a phase where the activity is enhanced (supercritical phase) and a phase where activity collapses (subcritical phase). Subcritical phases are characterized by strong coordination between systemic elements in the absence of fluctuations, in which neural assemblies are locked into fixed interactions. Supercritical phases are characterized by chaotic fluctuations with low coordination, which leads to a lack of stability. Operating under criticality means optimal information processing with a balance between stability and flexibility, order and chaos, synchronization, and desynchronization [22, 23]. The interplay between all these anticorrelated processes is possible through a hight complexity of processes such as:
-
i
Reciprocal interaction of antagonistic feedback loops between excitatory and inhibitory synapses [24] that lead to cyclic oscillations in neuronal excitability.
-
j
Wide spectrum on interneuronal communication. Behind chemical synapses, there are also electrical synapses through neural gap junction and membrane nanotubes, and a direct effect of the endogenous magnetic field upon neuronal signalling has been recognized [25, 26]. The mixture between chemical (slower, but more versatile) and electrical synapses (faster) leads to a mixture of synchronized and unsynchronized neuronal populations, generally known as chimaera state [27, 28].
-
k
The coexistence of oscillatory and non-oscillatory activity. The arrhythmic fluctuations are not characterized by a temporal pattern and are usually referred to as free-scale neural dynamics. Neural avalanches represent one example of free-activity. They consist of bursts of neural activity that coexists and cooperates with oscillatory activity, being essential for the maintenance of critical dynamics [29], especially related to synchronization-desynchronization interplay [30].
As in the case of criticality, metastability is a behavior that characterizes both neuronal population/local circuits and long-range connections. It represents a balance between two anticorrelated tendencies: informational segregation and integration, or explained at length, “individualist tendencies for the diverse regions of the brain to express themselves coexist with coordinative tendencies to couple and cooperate as a whole” [31].
Multistable behavior is closely linked with the notion of attractor, which is a relatively stable state towards which a system will converge—for example, a specific oscillatory pattern from a set of initial coordinates. Due to the dynamical changes in synchronization, neuronal populations are characterized by multiple attractors. The multistability represents the capacity of a system to jump from a partially synchronized state to another, known as metastable states, leading to a heterogeneous synchronization pattern [32].
Synchronization-desynchronization interplay
The continuous switch between synchronization-desynchronization has been recognized in each level of the brain’s organization, being a bilateral influence between local neural dynamics and large-scale networks. At the level of neuronal populations and microcircuits, it is the direct result of the mechanisms described above—the balance between excitatory and inhibitory microcircuits, the delays between different types of neuronal synapses, and the coexistence between oscillatory and non-oscillatory neuronal activities. At the level of large-scale structures, it is also influenced by coherence and entrainment between the oscillatory activity of different brain regions.
Synchronization-desynchronization interplay is indispensable for the network’s adaptability and depends on networks’ functional and structural integrity. As a system gets imbalanced—structural and functional alterations due to trauma, neurodegenerative processes, ionic channels, or neurotransmitters’ imbalances—it moves away from the edge of criticality. This act triggers an imbalance between synchronization and desynchronization translated into a mixture between hypo and hyperconnectivity, as observed in a wide spectrum of neurological and psychiatric pathologies—vascular or Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, autism spectrum disorders, and schizophrenia.
The structural connectome has been defined as a complex map of neural connections, in which nodes correspond to grey matter assemblies and edges correspond to structural white matter pathways that are located in between them (Box 1) [33].
Box 1 Graph theory applied to neural networks
First developed in the 18th century by Leonhard Euler, graph theory provides a practical mathematical framework for studying relationships. It is broadly used in neuroscience in both structural and functional studies of brain’s network. | |
➢ Nodes may represent either individual neurons or, more often, interconnected brain regions. In fMRI studies, they represent regions of interest (ROI) – the parcellation of the original voxel-level data, in electroencephalographic (EEG) they represent electrodes’ position, and in magnetoencephalographic (MEG) sensors’ position. | |
➢ Edges may represent either a structural or functional relationship between the nodes. | |
➢ Degree distribution K of a node represents the number of direct connections of that node. The average degree distribution of a network represents the average of the degrees of all nodes and represents a measurement of the connectivity of that network. | |
➢ Betweenness centrality represents the number of times a node acts as the strongest connecter between any two different nodes. | |
➢ Participation index measures the distribution degree of a node among all modules. | |
➢ Shortest path length represents the smallest number of edges between two given nodes. | |
➢ Clusters are groups of interconnected nodes. | |
➢ Clustering coefficient represent the ratio between the number of edges among neighbours of a node and the maximum number of edges among those neighbours. | |
➢ Hubs are nodes with a higher influence on the network’s dynamics because of higher degree distribution, betweenness centrality and participation index. | |
➢ Modularity represents the characteristic of brain’s network to be organized in distinct functional networks communities. It has an essential role in the integration-segregation interplay. Modules are interconnected through hub nodes. | |
➢ Small worldness represents the type of the complex networks that combines short path length between regions of interest (increased global efficiency) and an increased clustering coefficient. Other types of networks are represented by the Random Graph of Erdos and Rényi and Scale-free Networks of Barabási and Albert (Fig. 3). Small wordness and/or free-scale networks are conferring the optimal efficiency and resilience of neural networks. | |
➢ Rich club organization represents the tendency of the hubs with high clustering coefficient to connect within themselves [33]. |
Computational models of large-scale resting-state networks (RSN) suggest that the nodes of a network, as well as the clusters, are characterized by a high level of synchrony. In contrast, the global network is partially asynchronous due to time-delay interactions [34]. The strength of correlations inside a node, cluster, or network varies in time, with periods of strong correlations alternating with periods of partial synchronicity or asynchronicity [35]. A specific task determines simultaneous phase modulation and synchronization of task-relevant brain regions. This translates into enhanced connectivity, but with high energetic costs [36, 37], rendering vulnerability of nodes with a higher clustering coefficient in pathologies associated with mitochondrial dysfunction: neurodegenerative diseases, stroke, traumatic brain injury, epilepsy, and others.
An example of how structural lesions can have an impact on connectome dynamics are patients with diffuse axonal injury caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI). In their case, an altered integration of sensory, motor, and cognitive information was observed, with a reduction in metastability of RSN. This was associated with both increased and decreased interconnectivity and altered cognitive functions (e.g., reduced cognitive flexibility, information processing, and associative memory) [38].
Segregation-integration interplay
The connectome is characterized by both segregation and integration of neuronal information. The modular organization (clusters) is responsible for segregation and specialization, while network hubs are responsible for integration [39, 40]. Small-world organization, which combines short path length between regions of interest (increased global efficiency) and an increased clustering coefficient, is considered to be optimal for functional cognitive status (Fig. 3; Box 1). It is a balanced trade-off between minimizing the energetic wiring costs and maximizing information processing [41, 42].
As previously discussed on the synchronization-desynchronization balance, the dysfunction or loss of nodes with a high degree in connectivity also disrupts the “small-world” organization, leading to a reduced number of long-range connections, increased clustering, and path length [37, 44,45,46]. It appears that lesions that affect central nodes with a high participant coefficient lead to an increase in metastability. Lesions that affect peripheral nodes, with lower participant coefficient, lead to a decrease in metastability [47]. The result is a mixture between decreased specialization and global integration and an intra-network hyperconnectivity, with less capacity of dynamical reorganization and reduced variety of neural states. These are crucial for cognitive processes, such as inhibitory control [48,49,50,51,52]. Loss of small-world state was observed in MCI patients both during active and resting state and is considered to be a reliable biomarker for the progression of cognitive dysfunction [53, 54]. All brain functions, especially cognition, imply a dynamic balance between segregation and integration that results in a perpetual functional and structural reorganization of the brain. Such a dynamic balance was intensively studied between resting-state networks (RSN), characterized by spontaneous activity that increases in the absence of a task, and task-positive networks (TPN) (Box 2) [42 55–58] . The segregation between RSN and TPN networks is relative. Recent studies have highlighted that parts or RSN and TPN may be activated together and promote each other. For example, although default mode network (DMN) is considered to function in opposition to the salience network (SN) [59], parts of DMN are activated along with task-activated regions during cognitive activities: ventral posterior cingulate cortex during attention-demanding tasks [60], inferior parietal cortex [61], medial prefrontal cortex, and posterior cingulate cortex [62] during preparation and retrieval phases of working memory and also inferior parietal cortex during error awareness (a metacognitive ability) [63]. Moreover, mind wandering is not only associated with increased activity of DMN, but also with decreased connectivity in different regions within this network. This probably occurs as a consequence of coactivation during novel tasks [64].
Box 2 Resting-state and task-positive networks
Traditionally, brain networks have been divided into resting- state (RSN) and task-positive networks (TPN). | |
The most important RSM is the default mode network (DMN). It uses the most direct structural connection from the all RSN, involving precuneus, posterior cingulate (retrosplenial cortex), ventromedial prefrontal cortex, inferior parietal lobes (angular gyrus) and lateral temporal cortex [42, 55]. | |
Examples of TPN networks include salience network (SN), central executive network (CEN), attention networks (DAN and VAN) and motor network (MOT). SN is activated by external stimuli and contains dorsal anterior cingulate and frontoinsular cortexes. CEN is activated by cognitive tasks and is composed by the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the posterior parietal cortex. The DAN (dorsal fronto-parietal network) is responsible for both top-down and bottom-up types of attention, while the VAN (ventral fronto-parietal network) is predominantly responsible for bottom-up attention; these two networks function through dynamic interaction. MOT includes the bilateral primary network cortex, a part of the bilateral primary somatosensory cortex and the supplementary motor area [56,57,58]. |
In addition to an overlap in the activation of RSN and TPN, networks that were initially considered to be pure TPN are also activated in the absence of task-relevant stimuli. Examples of such networks are ventral attention network (VAN) and motor network (MOT) [35, 65, 66]. DMN, along with VAN and MOT, achieve the integration of internal cognitive processes with sensory and motor information through several hubs characterized by rich-club organization. These processes are otherwise segregated [67]. In order to achieve this dynamic, the hubs actively change the degree of connectivity, switching their roles in a network from high centrality to low centrality and vice versa [55].
Through this “dynamic core,” RSN presents a dynamic behavior, continuously coupling and decoupling to optimize the global flow of interaction.
It is increasingly recognized that focal lesions, such as those encountered in stoke, do not determine isolated deficits linked directly to the injured areas, but rather correlated cognitive-behavioral phenotypes that result from an overall imbalance of the whole connectivity. Structural changes, such as an increase of the shortest path length between two regions indirectly connected, were associated with functional connectivity alterations that are derived from a reduction of modularity and an imbalance of segregation-integration interplays [68, 69].
Stability-flexibility interplay of informational flow
The analysis of the collective behavior of large-scale networks, independent of methodology, is based on the idea of emergence—the property of a system to be much more than its compounds. The challenge consists in analyzing patterns of interaction between multi-level temporal and spatial activities. For example, parts RSN can change connections across time, recombining into different networks with a completely new behavioral phenotype. The dynamics of these recombinations depends on both internal and external events, giving rise to a broad variety of functions [70]. In physiological condition, this adaptive behavior is governed by a balance between deep and shallow attractor basins. The first one is associated with robustness of informational flow, and the second one with high variability. Too much robustness leads to a decrease in networks’ dynamics, by trapping the oscillations into fix patterns. In terms of cognitive function, it translates into the difficulty of the attentional switch from one task to another or less receptiveness to different stimuli, phenomenon encountered in specific phenotypes of autism spectrum disorder and depression. It can also be translated into chronic, stable maladaptive reorganization that occurs after structural lesions, such as in stroke, or into pathological hyperconnectivity states encountered in seizures. Shallow basin attractors are associated with weak synchronization and frequent shifts of transition states, which may lead to difficulty in maintaining attention on one task, as in the case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [71].
Order-chaos interplay: from signal complexity to temporospatial variability
The complexity of the brain’s behavior derives both from non-oscillatory neural activity and oscillatory temporospatial dynamics of large-scale networks.
For an extended period, the free-scale neural activity was considered to be just noise and hence removed from many EEG and local field potential (LFP) studies due to emphasis of oscillatory frequency [72, 73]. It was highlighted by BOLD (blood oxygenation level-dependent) signal of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as spontaneous fluctuations occurring at a slow frequency (< 0.1 Hz) [74, 75], by EEG and MEG studies as a complex combination between multiple frequency bands, between 8 and 30 Hz [76,77,78], and by LFP studies as variating between 50 and 150 Hz [79]. Currently, it is considered to be essential for maintaining the dynamics and flexibility of neural firing patterns, as it facilitates transitions between different oscillatory patterns, helps neurons to reach a firing threshold, and keeps a balance between neuronal synchronization and desynchronization [80]. Changes in fractal dimension were observed in different neurological and psychiatrically disorders, decreasing in stroke [81], vascular and Alzheimer’s dementia [82, 83], and in schizophrenia [84], and increasing in depression [85]. An increased signal complexity was also found during seizures, and a decreased complexity, in interictal periods [86].
Similar to the neural free-scale activity, the complexity of the temporospatial dynamics of large-scale networks has the role of facilitating the transition between different alternative brain states. A standard measure of the complexity of the dynamical connectivity is entropy, which measures both variability and diversity of the neural states’ repertoire. Changes in entropy were linked with both structural and functional alterations of connectivity. For example, in post-stroke patients, loss of the degree of the nodes was correlated with lower entropy, both on the lesioned and contralateral side [87]. Altered functional connectivity (FC) of DMN between posterior cingulate cortex and right hippocampus in Alzheimer’s dementia patients was associated with both a reduction in multi-scale entropy (MSE) and cognitive performances [88]. In contrast to structural connectivity, FC has been considered to be variable in both time and space, linking different connectivity states between different neural systems [89]. Additionally, recent studies suggest that MSE and FC represent two sides of the same coin, both of them assessing the complexity of information processing [90, 91].
Cognitive function as a result of brain connectivity
Brain connectivity represents much more than neural connectivity. The dynamics of neural networks are directly influenced by the interferences of other types of networks: gene networks, protein interaction networks, metabolic networks, neurotransmitters’ network, neurotrophic factors’ network, and many others.
It is well known that the brain’s network strength is modulated by synaptic communication, namely long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD), and by resting membrane potential. These are determined by the expression of genes closely linked to neurotransmitters and ion channel activity. Recent studies have proven the association between functional networks (including resting-state networks) and gene networks, with direct implications on neuro-psychiatric pathologies [92,93,94]. Moreover, neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), appear to be correlated with the accumulation of functional genetic alterations inside the entire genetic network, rather than punctual, independent mutations [95, 96]. The notion of gene networks is derived from the observation of dynamical regulatory interactions between genes. Similar to brain networks, gene networks are characterized by both robustness and sensitivity, oscillatory and non-oscillatory, free-scale activity [97,98,99].
Synchronization of neurons by temporal coordination during gamma oscillations is modulated by the interplay between inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitters. gamma-Aminobutyric acid (GABA) levels have been proved to modulate RSN. High GABA concentrations in the posterior cingulate cortex and precuneus are associated with DMN deactivation, which is essential in the proper performance of task-related activities [100]. Moreover, GABA is involved in the modulation of the basal ganglia network, cortico-striatal connectivity, and thalamo-striatal connectivity. These play important roles in the executive function [101, 102]. However, the function of inhibitory fast-spiking interneurons, which are responsible for the release of GABA [103], is dependent on high energy expenditure, rendering neurons vulnerable in the elderly and individuals with various neurologic pathologies (e.g., neurodegenerative diseases, stroke, and vascular dementia) [104]. Overexpression of glutamate signalling in AD [94] contributes to the imbalance of neurotransmitters, with subsequent alteration of synchronization in different frequency bands [105] and with alteration of large-scale networks [106, 107].
A fascinating consequence of the interferences between neural activity and the other types of networks is the potential of changing pathological pathways by applying different types of brain stimulation. For example, gamma frequency entrainment induced by sensory stimuli generates changes in microcirculation, microglial activation, and facilitates amyloid load reduction in mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease [108]. High-frequency repetitive transcranial stimulation (rTMS) interacts with genes involved in neuroprotection pathways and modulates astrocyte activity [109]. There is still need of research for understanding how to find ways to interact with all this complexity of intricated systems and subsystems, but all the advances that have already been done in the understanding of brain’s dynamics have brought us closer to new treatment opportunities for patients with cognitive impairment.
Concluding remarks
According to Maurizio Corbetta, “the function of any brain region or its dysfunction after damage cannot be understood in isolation but only in conjunction with that of other connected regions, and by considering not only how a region responds to stimuli or tasks, but its spontaneous activity and its interactions with other parts of the network.” In agreement with this vision, we assert that cognitive dysfunction represents a consequence of a global imbalance of all three levels of brain organization: cellular and molecular level, circuitry level, and large-scale network level. Even more, at all these levels, dysfunctions can be translated as an imbalance of the interplay of anticorrelated processes which maintain the critical dynamics of the brain’s function under physiological conditions. It is also important to remember that the central nervous system is bidirectionally related with other fundamental systems such as the immune, endocrine, and autonomic systems, and microbiota, all of which present changes in patients with cognitive dysfunctions.
We conclude that therapeutic approaches for cognitive disfunction targeting isolated components of a system that presents imbalance are ineffective and should be considered with caution. Neurocognitive disorders require a combination of synergistic interventions, starting with clinical observations, tracking of potential systemic imbalances, and employing an iterative tailoring process, based on the clinical evolution of individual patients.
References
Carrera E, Tononi G (2014) Diaschisis: past, present, future. Brain J Neurol 137(Pt 9):2408–2422
Agnati LF, Marcoli M, Maura G, Woods A, Guidolin D (2018) The brain as a “hyper-network”: the key role of neural networks as main producers of the integrated brain actions especially via the “broadcasted” neuroconnectomics. J Neural Transm Vienna Austria 1996 125(6):883–897
Neisser U (1967) Cognitive psychology, 1st edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 351 p
Trewavas A (2006) A brief history of systems biology. Plant Cell 18(10):2420–2430
Cognitive science as complexity science - Favela (2020) WIREs Cognitive Science - Wiley Online Library [Internet] [cited 2020 Sep 28] Available from: https://onlinelibrarywileycom/doi/abs/101002/wcs1525
Koestler A (1968) The ghost in the machine, First American edn. Macmillan, London 384 p
Amazoncom (2020) Holacracy: The new management system for a rapidly changing world eBook: Robertson, Brian J: Kindle Store Available from: https://wwwamazoncom/Holacracy-Management-System-Rapidly-Changing-ebook/dp/B00PF6QM6K
Holacracy (2020) In: Wikipedia [Internet] [cited 2020 Sep 28] Available from: https://enwikipediaorg/w/indexphp?title=Holacracy&oldid=966668492
Salthe SN, Matsuno K (1995) Self-organization in hierarchical systems. J Soc Evol Syst 18(4):327–338
Busseniers E (2014) Hierarchical organization versus self-organization ArXiv14021670 Cs [Internet] [cited 2020 Sep 28]; Available from: http://arxivorg/abs/14021670
Choi I, Lee J-Y, Lee S-H (2018) Bottom-up and top-down modulation of multisensory integration. Curr Opin Neurobiol 52:115–122
Feltz B, Crommelinck M, Goujon P (eds) (2006) Self-organization and emergence in life sciences [Internet] Springer Netherlands [cited 2020 Sep 28] (Synthese Library) Available from: https://wwwspringercom/gp/book/9781402039164
Muresanu DF, Buzoianu A, Florian SI, von Wild T (2012) Towards a roadmap in brain protection and recovery. J Cell Mol Med 16(12):2861–2871
Guidolin D, Anderlini D, Marcoli M, Cortelli P, Calandra-Buonaura G, Woods AS et al (2019) A new integrative theory of brain-body-ecosystem medicine: from the hippocratic holistic view of medicine to our modern society. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(17):28
Kamimura D, Tanaka Y, Hasebe R, Murakami M (2019) Bidirectional communication between neural and immune systems Int Immunol
Williams CL, Garcia-Reyero N, Martyniuk CJ, Tubbs CW, Bisesi JH (2020) Regulation of endocrine systems by the microbiome: perspectives from comparative animal models. Gen Comp Endocrinol 292:113437
Osman ME, Hannafin MJ (1992) Metacognition research and theory: analysis and implications for instructional design. Educ Technol Res Dev 40(2):83–99
Flavell JH (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. Am Psychol 34(10):906–911
Bhome R, McWilliams A, Huntley JD, Fleming SM, Howard RJ (2019) Metacognition in functional cognitive disorder- a potential mechanism and treatment target. Cognit Neuropsychiatry 24(5):311–321
Smallwood J, Schooler JW (2015) The science of mind wandering: empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annu Rev Psychol 66:487–518
Mooneyham BW, Schooler JW (2013) The costs and benefits of mind-wandering: a review. Can J Exp Psychol Rev Can Psychol Exp 67(1):11–18
Beggs JM, Timme N (2012) Being critical of criticality in the brain. Front Physiol 3:163
Cocchi L, Gollo LL, Zalesky A, Breakspear M (2017) Criticality in the brain: a synthesis of neurobiology, models and cognition. Prog Neurobiol 158:132–152
Meunier CNJ, Chameau P, Fossier PM (2017) Modulation of synaptic plasticity in the cortex needs to understand all the players Front Synaptic Neurosci [Internet] [cited 2020 Sep 28];9 Available from: https://wwwncbinlmnihgov/pmc/articles/PMC5285384/
Alcamí P, Pereda AE (2019) Beyond plasticity: the dynamic impact of electrical synapses on neural circuits. Nat Rev Neurosci 20(5):253–271
Scholkmann F (2015) Two emerging topics regarding long-range physical signaling in neurosystems: membrane nanotubes and electromagnetic fields. J Integr Neurosci 14(2):135–153
Bera BK, Rakshit S, Ghosh D, Kurths J (2019) Spike chimera states and firing regularities in neuronal hypernetworks. Chaos Woodbury N 29(5):053115
Majhi S, Bera BK, Ghosh D, Perc M (2019) Chimera states in neuronal networks: A review. Phys Life Rev 28:100–121
Moosavi SA, Montakhab A, Valizadeh A (2018) Coexistence of scale-invariant and rhythmic behavior in self-organized criticality. Phys Rev E 98(2–1):022304
Miller SR, Yu S, Plenz D (2019) The scale-invariant, temporal profile of neuronal avalanches in relation to cortical γ-oscillations. Sci Rep 9(1):16403
Perlovsky LI, Kozma R (2007) Neurodynamics of cognition and consciousness In: Perlovsky LI, Kozma R (eds) Neurodynamics of cognition and consciousness [Internet] Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007 [cited 2020 Sep 29] p 1–8 (Understanding Complex Systems) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73267-9_1
Kelso JAS (2012) Multistability and metastability: understanding dynamic coordination in the brain. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367(1591):906–918
Hagmann P, Cammoun L, Gigandet X, Gerhard S, Grant PE, Wedeen V et al (2010) MR connectomics: Principles and challenges. J Neurosci Methods 194(1):34–45
Cabral J, Hugues E, Sporns O, Deco G (2011) Role of local network oscillations in resting-state functional connectivity. NeuroImage 57(1):130–139
de Pasquale F, Della Penna S, Snyder AZ, Marzetti L, Pizzella V, Romani GL et al (2012) A cortical core for dynamic integration of functional networks in the resting human brain. Neuron 74(4):753–764
Schroeder CE, Lakatos P (2009) The gamma oscillation: master or slave? Brain Topogr 22(1):24–26
Bullmore E, Sporns O (2012) The economy of brain network organization. Nat Rev Neurosci 13(5):336–349
Hellyer PJ, Scott G, Shanahan M, Sharp DJ, Leech R (2015) Cognitive Flexibility through Metastable Neural Dynamics Is Disrupted by Damage to the Structural Connectome. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 35(24):9050–9063
van den Heuvel MP, Sporns O (2011) Rich-club organization of the human connectome. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 31(44):15775–15786
Sporns O (2018) Graph theory methods: applications in brain networks. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 20(2):111–121
de Pasquale F, Corbetta M, Betti V, Della Penna S (2017) Cortical cores in network dynamics NeuroImage
Sporns O (2013) Structure and function of complex brain networks. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 15(3):247–262
Solé RV, Valverde S (2004) Information theory of complex networks: on evolution and architectural constraints In: Ben-Naim E, Frauenfelder H, Toroczkai Z, editors Complex networks [Internet] Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer [cited 2020 Sep 29] p 189–207 (Lecture Notes in Physics) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44485-5_9
Chen Y, Wang S, Hilgetag CC, Zhou C (2017) Features of spatial and functional segregation and integration of the primate connectome revealed by trade-off between wiring cost and efficiency. PLoS Comput Biol 13(9):e1005776
null SR, null JL, Taya F, deSouza J, Thakor NV, Bezerianos A (2017) Dynamic functional segregation and integration in human brain network during complex tasks. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Publ IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 25(6):547–556
Douw L, Schoonheim MM, Landi D, van der Meer ML, Geurts JJG, Reijneveld JC et al (2011) Cognition is related to resting-state small-world network topology: an magnetoencephalographic study. Neuroscience 175:169–177
Lin S-J, Baumeister TR, Garg S, McKeown MJ (2018) Cognitive profiles and hub vulnerability in parkinson’s disease. Front Neurol 9:482
Lee K, Khoo HM, Lina J-M, Dubeau F, Gotman J, Grova C (2018) Disruption, emergence and lateralization of brain network hubs in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. NeuroImage Clin 20:71–84
Larivière S, Ward NS, Boudrias M-H (2018) Disrupted functional network integrity and flexibility after stroke: Relation to motor impairments. NeuroImage Clin 19:883–891
Han K, Chapman SB, Krawczyk DC (2016) Disrupted Intrinsic connectivity among default, dorsal attention, and frontoparietal control networks in individuals with chronic traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc JINS 22(2):263–279
Váša F, Shanahan M, Hellyer PJ, Scott G, Cabral J, Leech R (2015) Effects of lesions on synchrony and metastability in cortical networks. NeuroImage 118:456–467
Popov T, Westner BU, Silton RL, Sass SM, Spielberg JM, Rockstroh B et al (2018) Time course of brain network reconfiguration supporting inhibitory control. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 38(18):4348–4356
Corbetta M, Siegel JS, Shulman GL (2018) On the low dimensionality of behavioral deficits and alterations of brain network connectivity after focal injury. Cortex J Devoted Study Nerv Syst Behav 107:229–237
Siegel JS, Ramsey LE, Snyder AZ, Metcalf NV, Chacko RV, Weinberger K et al (2016) Disruptions of network connectivity predict impairment in multiple behavioral domains after stroke. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(30):E4367–E4376
Kabbara A, El Falou W, Khalil M, Wendling F, Hassan M (2017) The dynamic functional core network of the human brain at rest. Sci Rep 7(1):2936
Chand GB, Wu J, Hajjar I, Qiu D (2017) Interactions of the salience network and its subsystems with the default-mode and the central-executive networks in normal aging and mild cognitive impairment. Brain Connect 7(7):401–412
Farrant K, Uddin LQ (2015) Asymmetric development of dorsal and ventral attention networks in the human brain. Dev Cogn Neurosci 12:165–174
Wadden KP, Woodward TS, Metzak PD, Lavigne KM, Lakhani B, Auriat AM et al (2015) Compensatory motor network connectivity is associated with motor sequence learning after subcortical stroke. Behav Brain Res 286:136–145
Jilka SR, Scott G, Ham T, Pickering A, Bonnelle V, Braga RM et al (2014) Damage to the salience network and interactions with the default mode network. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 34(33):10798–10807
Leech R, Kamourieh S, Beckmann CF, Sharp DJ (2011) Fractionating the default mode network: distinct contributions of the ventral and dorsal posterior cingulate cortex to cognitive control. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 31(9):3217–3224
Wisniewski D, Reverberi C, Momennejad I, Kahnt T, Haynes J-D (2015) The Role of the Parietal Cortex in the Representation of Task-Reward Associations. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 35(36):12355–12365
Silton RL, Heller W, Towers DN, Engels AS, Spielberg JM, Edgar JC et al (2010) The time course of activity in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex during top-down attentional control. NeuroImage 50(3):1292–1302
Pietrzak RH, Cohen H, Snyder PJ (2007) Spatial learning efficiency and error monitoring in normal aging: an investigation using a novel hidden maze learning test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol Off J Natl Acad Neuropsychol 22(2):235–245
Piccoli T, Valente G, Linden DEJ, Re M, Esposito F, Sack AT et al (2015) The default mode network and the working memory network are not anti-correlated during all phases of a working memory task. PLOS ONE 10(4):e0123354
de Pasquale F, Sabatini U, Della Penna S, Sestieri C, Caravasso CF, Formisano R et al (2013) The connectivity of functional cores reveals different degrees of segregation and integration in the brain at rest. NeuroImage 69:51–61
Scalf PE, Ahn J, Beck DM, Lleras A (2014) Trial history effects in the ventral attentional network. J Cogn Neurosci 26(12):2789–2797
de Pasquale F, Della Penna S, Sporns O, Romani GL, Corbetta M (2016) A dynamic core network and global efficiency in the resting human brain. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991 26(10):4015–4033
Adhikari MH, Hacker CD, Siegel JS, Griffa A, Hagmann P, Deco G et al (2017) Decreased integration and information capacity in stroke measured by whole brain models of resting state activity. Brain J Neurol 140(4):1068–1085
Griffis JC, Metcalf NV, Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2020) Damage to the shortest structural paths between brain regions is associated with disruptions of resting-state functional connectivity after stroke. NeuroImage 210:116589
Roberts JA, Gollo LL, Abeysuriya RG, Roberts G, Mitchell PB, Woolrich MW et al (2019) Metastable brain waves. Nat Commun 10(1):1056
Duch W (2019) Autism spectrum disorder and deep attractors in neurodynamics In: Cutsuridis V (ed) Multiscale models of brain disorders [Internet] Cham: Springer International Publishing; [cited 2020 Sep 29] p 135–46 (Springer Series in Cognitive and Neural Systems) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18830-6_13
He BJ, Zempel JM, Snyder AZ, Raichle ME (2010) The temporal structures and functional significance of scale-free brain activity. Neuron 66(3):353–369
He BJ (2014) Scale-free brain activity: past, present, and future. Trends Cogn Sci 18(9):480–487
Fox MD, Raichle ME (2007) Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nat Rev Neurosci 8(9):700–711
Herman P, Sanganahalli BG, Hyder F, Eke A (2011) Fractal analysis of spontaneous fluctuations of the BOLD signal in rat brain. NeuroImage 58(4):1060–1069
Liu Z, Fukunaga M, de Zwart JA, Duyn JH (2010) Large-scale spontaneous fluctuations and correlations in brain electrical activity observed with magnetoencephalography. NeuroImage 51(1):102–111
Murta T, Leite M, Carmichael DW, Figueiredo P, Lemieux L (2015) Electrophysiological correlates of the BOLD signal for EEG-informed fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp 36(1):391–414
Keller CJ, Bickel S, Honey CJ, Groppe DM, Entz L, Craddock RC et al (2013) Neurophysiological investigation of spontaneous correlated and anticorrelated fluctuations of the BOLD signal. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 33(15):6333–6342
Pan W-J, Thompson G, Magnuson M, Majeed W, Jaeger D, Keilholz S (2011) Broadband local field potentials correlate with spontaneous fluctuations in functional magnetic resonance imaging signals in the rat somatosensory cortex under isoflurane anesthesia. Brain Connect 1(2):119–131
McDonough IM, Nashiro K (2014) Network complexity as a measure of information processing across resting-state networks: evidence from the Human Connectome Project. Front Hum Neurosci 8:409
Zappasodi F, Pasqualetti P, Rossini PM, Tecchio F (2019) Acute phase neuronal activity for the prognosis of stroke recovery. Neural Plast 2019:1971875
Al-Nuaimi AH, Jammeh E, Sun L, Ifeachor E (2017) Higuchi fractal dimension of the electroencephalogram as a biomarker for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Annu Int Conf 2017:2320–2324
Al-Qazzaz NK, Ali SHBM, Ahmad SA, Islam MS, Escudero J (2018) Discrimination of stroke-related mild cognitive impairment and vascular dementia using EEG signal analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput 56(1):137–157
Namazi H, Aghasian E, Ala TS (2019) Fractal-based classification of electroencephalography (EEG) signals in healthy adolescents and adolescents with symptoms of schizophrenia. Technol Health Care Off J Eur Soc Eng Med 27(3):233–241
Čukić M, Stokić M, Radenković S, Ljubisavljević M, Simić S, Savić D (2020) Nonlinear analysis of EEG complexity in episode and remission phase of recurrent depression. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 29(2):e1816
Namazi H, Aghasian E, Ala TS (2020) Complexity-based classification of EEG signal in normal subjects and patients with epilepsy. Technol Health Care Off J Eur Soc Eng Med 28(1):57–66
Saenger VM, Ponce-Alvarez A, Adhikari M, Hagmann P, Deco G, Corbetta M (2018) Linking entropy at rest with the underlying structural connectivity in the healthy and lesioned brain. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991 28(8):2948–2958
Grieder M, Wang DJJ, Dierks T, Wahlund L-O, Jann K (2018) Default mode network complexity and cognitive decline in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Front Neurosci 12:770
Allen EA, Damaraju E, Plis SM, Erhardt EB, Eichele T, Calhoun VD (2014) Tracking whole-brain connectivity dynamics in the resting state. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991 24(3):663–676
Wang DJJ, Jann K, Fan C, Qiao Y, Zang Y-F, Lu H et al (2018) Neurophysiological basis of multi-scale entropy of brain complexity and its relationship with functional connectivity. Front Neurosci 12:352
Liu M, Song C, Liang Y, Knöpfel T, Zhou C (2019) Assessing spatiotemporal variability of brain spontaneous activity by multiscale entropy and functional connectivity. NeuroImage 198:198–220
Richiardi J, Altmann A, Milazzo A-C, Chang C, Chakravarty MM, Banaschewski T et al (2015) BRAIN NETWORKS Correlated gene expression supports synchronous activity in brain networks. Science 348(6240):1241–1244
Waldron D (2015) Human genetics: gene expression and functional brain networks [Internet] Nat Rev Genet [cited 2018 Aug 6] Available from: https://wwwnaturecom/articles/nrg3986
Chatterjee P, Roy D, Bhattacharyya M, Bandyopadhyay S (2017) Biological networks in Parkinson’s disease: an insight into the epigenetic mechanisms associated with this disease. BMC Genomics 18(1):721
Pérez-Palma E, Bustos BI, Villamán CF, Alarcón MA, Avila ME, Ugarte GD et al (2014) Overrepresentation of glutamate signaling in Alzheimer’s disease: network-based pathway enrichment using meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. PloS One 9(4):e95413
Pita-Juárez Y, Altschuler G, Kariotis S, Wei W, Koler K, Green C et al (2018) The Pathway Coexpression Network: Revealing pathway relationships. PLoS Comput Biol 14(3):e1006042
Wildenhain J, Crampin EJ (2006) Reconstructing gene regulatory networks: from random to scale-free connectivity. Syst Biol 153(4):247–256
Fu D, Tan P, Kuznetsov A, Molkov YI (2014) Chaos and robustness in a single family of genetic oscillatory networks. PloS One 9(3):e90666
Nido GS, Ryan MM, Benuskova L, Williams JM (2015) Dynamical properties of gene regulatory networks involved in long-term potentiation. Front Mol Neurosci 8:42
Hu Y, Chen X, Gu H, Yang Y (2013) Resting-state glutamate and GABA concentrations predict task-induced deactivation in the default mode network. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 33(47):18566–18573
Dharmadhikari S, Ma R, Yeh C-L, Stock A-K, Snyder S, Zauber SE et al (2015) Striatal and thalamic GABA level concentrations play differential roles for the modulation of response selection processes by proprioceptive information. NeuroImage 120:36–42
Haag L, Quetscher C, Dharmadhikari S, Dydak U, Schmidt-Wilcke T, Beste C (2015) Interrelation of resting state functional connectivity, striatal GABA levels, and cognitive control processes. Hum Brain Mapp 36(11):4383–4393
Gulyás AI, Szabó GG, Ulbert I, Holderith N, Monyer H, Erdélyi F et al (2010) Parvalbumin-containing fast-spiking basket cells generate the field potential oscillations induced by cholinergic receptor activation in the hippocampus. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 30(45):15134–15145
Kann O (2016) The interneuron energy hypothesis: Implications for brain disease. Neurobiol Dis 90:75–85
López ME, Garcés P, Cuesta P, Castellanos NP, Aurtenetxe S, Bajo R et al (2014) Synchronization during an internally directed cognitive state in healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment: a MEG study. Age Dordr Neth 36(3):9643
Kapogiannis D, Reiter DA, Willette AA, Mattson MP (2013) Posteromedial cortex glutamate and GABA predict intrinsic functional connectivity of the default mode network. NeuroImage 64:112–119
Deleglise B, Lassus B, Soubeyre V, Doulazmi M, Brugg B, Vanhoutte P et al (2018) Dysregulated Neurotransmission induces Trans-synaptic degeneration in reconstructed Neuronal Networks. Sci Rep 8(1):11596
Martorell AJ, Paulson AL, Suk H-J, Abdurrob F, Drummond GT, Guan W et al (2019) Multi-sensory gamma stimulation ameliorates Alzheimer’s-associated pathology and improves cognition. Cell 177(2):256–271e22
Ikeda T, Kobayashi S, Morimoto C (2019) Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on ER stress-related genes and glutamate, γ-aminobutyric acid and glycine transporter genes in mouse brain. Biochem Biophys Rep 17:10–16
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CB and DS conceived the idea of the manuscript. CB, DS, and MB were involved in writing the manuscript. DS, LPL, and ES performed the literature search. DFM and SS critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies involving human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Birle, C., Slavoaca, D., Balea, M. et al. Cognitive function: holarchy or holacracy?. Neurol Sci 42, 89–99 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-020-04737-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-020-04737-3