A neural window on the emergence of cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can babies think? A fundamental challenge for cognitive neuroscience is to answer when brain functions begin and in what form they first emerge. This is challenging with behavioral tasks, as it is difficult to communicate to an infant what a task requires, and motor function is impoverished, making execution of the appropriate response difficult. To circumvent these requirements, neuroimaging provides a complementary route for assessing the emergence of cognition. Starting from the prerequisites of cognitive function and building stepwise, we review when the cortex forms and when it becomes gyrated and regionally differentiated. We then discuss when white matter tracts mature and when functional brain networks arise. Finally, we assess the responsiveness of these brain systems to external events. We find that many cognitive systems are observed surprisingly early. Some emerge before birth, with activations in the frontal lobe even in the first months of gestation. These discoveries are changing our understanding of the nature of cognitive networks and their early function, transforming cognitive neuroscience, and opening new windows for education and investigation. Infant neuroimaging also has tremendous clinical potential, for both detecting atypical development and facilitating earlier intervention. Finally, we discuss the key technical developments that are enabling this nascent field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".