SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yüksek İhtisas Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Understanding the Brain–Behavior Relationship: A Neuroimaging, Electrophysiology, and Neuromodulation Perspective

Beyin–Davranış İlişkisini Anlamak: Nörogörüntüleme, Elektrofizyoloji ve Nöromodülasyon Perspektifi

Bernis Sütçübaşı(ACIBADEM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7796-1841
Pages
88–98
Publication Date
2026-08-28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The combined and methodologically rigorous use of lesion studies, neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and neuromodulation provides a powerful foundation for understanding the brain’s dynamic and integrated functioning in a multidimensional manner.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the principal methods used to investigate the brain–behavior relationship in neuropsychology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Historically, this approach originated with the examination of localized brain lesions and has since expanded considerably through the integration of structural and functional neuroimaging, electrophysiological measurements, and non invasive brain stimulation techniques.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The combined and methodologically rigorous use of lesion studies, neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and neuromodulation provides a powerful foundation for understanding the brain’s dynamic and integrated functioning in a multidimensional manner.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Nöropsikoloji · nörogörüntüleme · elektrofizyoloji

Abstract

Introduction: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the principal methods used to investigate the brain–behavior relationship in neuropsychology. Historically, this approach originated with the examination of localized brain lesions and has since expanded considerably through the integration of structural and functional neuroimaging, electrophysiological measurements, and non invasive brain stimulation techniques. Structural neuroimaging enables the identification of lesion location and extent in conditions such as aphasia and other cognitive disorders, thereby elucidating the neuroanatomical foundations of cognitive functions. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a technique that maps brain regions activated during resting state and task conditions with high spatial resolution, supported by fast imaging sequences, standardized preprocessing pipelines, and robust statistical software. However, its main limitations include high sensitivity to motion artifacts, the hemodynamic response delay, and restricted temporal resolution. Electrophysiological methods, in contrast, record neural activity directly with millisecond precision, providing detailed insights into the temporal dynamics of cognitive processes. When combined with fMRI, they allow for the complementary integration of spatial and temporal information, offering a multidimensional and more reliable characterization of brain function. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques modulate cortical excitability, enabling causal inferences about the relationship between brain and behavior, while also supporting targeted interventions in clinical contexts such as depression treatment and stroke rehabilitation. Conclusion: The combined and methodologically rigorous use of lesion studies, neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and neuromodulation provides a powerful foundation for understanding the brain’s dynamic and integrated functioning in a multidimensional manner.

Özet

Giriş: Bu derleme, nöropsikolojide beyin–davranış ilişkisini anlamaya yönelik başlıca yöntemleri bütüncül bir çerçevede ele almaktadır. Tarihsel olarak lokalize beyin hasarlarının incelenmesiyle başlayan yaklaşım, günümüzde yapısal ve fonksiyonel nörogörüntüleme, elektrofizyolojik ölçümler ve invazif olmayan beyin uyarımı tekniklerinin katkısıyla önemli ölçüde genişlemiştir. Yapısal nörogörüntüleme, afazi ve diğer bilişsel bozukluklarda lezyonların konum ve yaygınlığını belirleyerek, bilişsel işlevlerin nöroanatomik temellerini aydınlatmaya olanak tanır. Fonksiyonel manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (fMRG) dinlenim ve görev koşullarında aktivite gösteren bölgeleri yüksek uzamsal çözünürlükle haritalayan bir tekniktir; hızlı sekanslar, standart ön işleme ve istatistiksel yazılımlar ile desteklenmektedir. Bununla birlikte hareket artefaktlarına yüksek duyarlılık, hemodinamik yanıtın gecikmesi ve sınırlı zamansal çözünürlük yöntemin başlıca kısıtlılıklarını oluşturur. Elektrofizyolojik yöntemler ise nöral aktiviteyi doğrudan ve milisaniye düzeyinde kaydederek bilişsel süreçlerin zamanlamasını yüksek doğrulukla ortaya koyar. fMRG ile birlikte kullanıldığında uzamsal ve zamansal bilgiyi tamamlayıcı biçimde bütünleyerek beyin işlevlerinin çok boyutlu ve daha güvenilir bir karakterizasyonunu sağlarlar. İnvazif olmayan beyin uyarımı, kortikal uyarılabilirliği modüle ederek beyin ve davranış ilişkisinde nedensel çıkarımlar yapılmasına olanak tanır ve klinik uygulamalarda (ör. depresyon tedavisi, inme rehabilitasyonu) hedefe yönelik müdahaleleri mümkün kılar. Sonuç: Lezyon çalışmaları, nörogörüntüleme, elektrofizyoloji ve nöromodülasyonun bir arada ve yöntemsel olarak titiz biçimde kullanımı, beynin dinamik ve bütünleşik işleyişinin çok boyutlu biçimde anlaşılmasına güçlü bir temel sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sütçübaşı, B. (2026). Understanding the Brain–Behavior Relationship: A Neuroimaging, Electrophysiology, and Neuromodulation Perspective. Yüksek İhtisas Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 88–98. https://ajindex.com/articles/1647671

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Cantalupo C, Hopkins WD. Asymmetric Broca’s area in great apes. Nature. 2001;414(6863):505. https://doi.org/10.1038/35107134
  2. Brazier, MAB. The historical development of neurophysiology. American Physiological Society, Washington DC, 1959
  3. Regan D. A high frequency mechanism which underlies visual evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1968;25(3):231–7. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(68)90020-5
  4. Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science. 1965;150(3700):1187–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.150.3700.1187
  5. Klimesch W. EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis. Brain Res Rev. 1999;29(2-3):169–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00056-3
  6. Klimesch W, Sauseng P, Hanslmayr S, Gruber W, Freunberger R. Event-related phase reorganization may explain evoked neural dynamics. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2007;31(7):1003–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.03.005
  7. Cohen D, Cuffin BN. Demonstration of useful differences between magnetoencephalogram and electroencephalogram. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983;56(1):38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013- 4694(83)90005-6
  8. Saturnino GB, Madsen KH, Thielscher A. Electric field simulations for transcranial brain stimulation using SimNIBS 2.1. Brain Stimul. 2019 JanFeb;12(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.09.009
  9. Lee JH, Kim DW, Kim DY, Chung SJ, Kim K, Im CH. COMETS2: an advanced MATLAB toolbox for the numerical analysis of electric fields generated by transcranial direct current stimulation. J Neurosci Methods. 2017 Jan 15;277:56-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.12.008
  10. Huang Y, Datta A, Bikson M, Parra LC. Realistic volumetric-approach to simulate transcranial electric stimulation—ROAST—a fully automated open-source pipeline. J Neural Eng. 2019 Oct 1;16(5):056006. https://doi. org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab208d
  11. Opitz A, Paulus W, Will S, Antunes A, Thielscher A. Determinants of the electric field during transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroimage. 2015 May 15;109:140-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.033
  12. George MS, Wassermann EM, Post RM. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a neuropsychiatric tool for the 21st century. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1996;8(4):373–82. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.8.4.373
  13. Dayan E, Censor N, Buch ER, Sandrini M, Cohen LG. Noninvasive brain stimulation: from physiology to network dynamics and back. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16(7):838–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3422
  14. Epstein CM, Schwartzberg DG, Davey KR, Sudderth DB. Localizing the site of magnetic brain stimulation in humans. Neurology. 1990;40(4):666. https:// doi.org/10.1212/WNL.40.4.666
  15. Bohning DE, Shastri A, Nahas Z, Lorberbaum JP, Andersen SW, Dannels WR, et al. Echoplanar BOLD fMRI of brain activation induced by concurrent transcranial magnetic stimulation. Invest Radiol. 1998;33(6):336–40
  16. Shafi MM, Westover MB, Fox MD, Pascual-Leone A. Exploration and modulation of brain network interactions with noninvasive brain stimulation in combination with neuroimaging. Eur J Neurosci. 2012;35(6):805–25. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08035.x
  17. Hoffman RE, Cavus I. Slow transcranial magnetic stimulation, long-term depotentiation, and brain hyperexcitability disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(7):1093–102. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.159.7.1093
  18. Hilgetag CC, Théoret H, Pascual-Leone A. Enhanced visual spatial attention ipsilateral to rTMS-induced “virtual lesions” of human parietal cortex. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4(9):953–7
  19. Penfield W, Rasmussen T. The cerebral cortex of man: a clinical study of localization of function. New York: Macmillan; 1950
  20. Vercammen A, Rushby JA, Loo C, Short B, Weickert CS, Weickert TW. Transcranial direct current stimulation influences probabilistic association learning in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2011;131(1-3):198–205. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.schres.2011.06.021
  21. Utz KS, Dimova V, Oppenländer K, Kerkhoff G. Electrified minds: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) as methods of non-invasive brain stimulation in neuropsychology—a review of current data and future implications. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(10):2789– 810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.002
  22. Antal A, Nitsche MA, Paulus W. External modulation of visual perception in humans. Neuroreport. 2001;12(16):3553–5
  23. Modolo J, Denoyer Y, Wendling F, Benquet P. Physiological effects of lowmagnitude electric fields on brain activity: advances from in vitro, in vivo and in silico models. Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2018;8:38–44. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cobme.2018.09.006
  24. Kuo MF, Nitsche MA. Effects of transcranial electrical stimulation on cognition. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2012;43(3):192–9. https://doi. org/10.1177/1550059412444975
  25. Nitsche MA, Fricke K, Henschke U, Schlitterlau A, Liebetanz D, Lang N, et al. Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans. J Physiol. 2003;553(1):293– 301. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2003.049916
  26. Monte-Silva K, Kuo MF, Hessenthaler S, Fresnoza S, Liebetanz D, Paulus W, et al. Induction of late LTP-like plasticity in the human motor cortex by repeated non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(3):424–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.04.011
  27. Medeiros LF, de Souza ICC, Vidor LP, de Souza A, Deitos A, Volz MS, et al. Neurobiological effects of transcranial direct current stimulation: a review. Front Psychiatry. 2012;3:110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00110
  28. Stagg CJ, O’Shea J, Kincses ZT, Woolrich M, Matthews PM, Johansen-Berg H. Modulation of movement-associated cortical activation by transcranial direct current stimulation. Eur J Neurosci. 2009;30(7):1412–23. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06937.x
  29. Damasio H, Damasio A, Hamsher K, Varney N. CT scan correlates of aphasia and allied disorders. Neurology. 1979;29(4):572
  30. Kertesz A, Harlock W, Coates R. Computer tomographic localization, lesion size, and prognosis in aphasia and nonverbal impairment. Brain Lang. 1979;8(1):34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(79)90038-5
  31. Mazzocchi F, Vignolo LA. Localisation of lesions in aphasia: clinical-CT scan correlations in stroke patients. Cortex. 1979;15(4):627–53. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0010-9452(79)80051-9
  32. Cappa SF, Vignolo LA. “Transcortical” features of aphasia following left thalamic hemorrhage. Cortex. 1979;15(1):121–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0010-9452(79)80012-X
  33. Damasio AR, Damasio H, Rizzo M, Varney N, Gersh F. Aphasia with nonhemorrhagic lesions in the basal ganglia and internal capsule. Arch Neurol. 1982;39(1):15–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1982.00510130017003
  34. Damasio AR. The brain binds entities and events by multiregional activation from convergence zones. Neural Comput. 1989;1(1):123–32. https://doi. org/10.1162/neco.1989.1.1.123
  35. James W. The principles of psychology. Vol. II. New York: Henry Holt and Company; 1890.
  36. Mosso A. Concerning the circulation of the blood in the human brain. Leipzig: Verlag von Viet & Company; 1881.
  37. Roy CS, Sherrington CS. On the regulation of the blood-supply of the brain. J Physiol. 1890;11(1-2):85–108. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1890.sp000321
  38. Huettel SA. Event-related fMRI in cognition. Neuroimage. 2012;62(2):1152– 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.113
  39. Friston K. A short history of SPM. In: Statistical parametric mapping: the analysis of functional brain images. London: Elsevier/Academic Press; 2007. p. 3–9
  40. Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Nieto-Castanon A. Conn: a functional connectivity toolbox for correlated and anticorrelated brain networks. Brain Connect. 2012;2(3):125–41. https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2012.0073
  41. Woolrich MW, Jbabdi S, Patenaude B, Chappell M, Makni S, Behrens T, et al. Bayesian analysis of neuroimaging data in FSL. Neuroimage. 2009;45(1 Suppl):S173–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.055
  42. Power JD, Barnes KA, Snyder AZ, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. Neuroimage. 2012;59(3):2142–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. neuroimage.2011.10.018
  43. Van Dijk KR, Sabuncu MR, Buckner RL. The influence of head motion on intrinsic functional connectivity MRI. Neuroimage. 2012;59(1):431–8. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.044
  44. Mazaika PK, Hoeft F, Glover GH, Reiss AL. Methods and software for fMRI analysis of clinical subjects. Neuroimage. 2009;47 Suppl 1:S58
  45. Buckner RL, Bandettini PA, O’Craven KM, Savoy RL, Petersen SE, Raichle ME, et al. Detection of cortical activation during averaged single trials of a cognitive task using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93(25):14878–83. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.25.14878
  46. Biswal BB, Hyde JS. Contour-based registration technique to differentiate between task-activated and head motion-induced signal variations in fMRI. Magn Reson Med. 1997;38(3):470–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ mrm.1910380315
  47. Biswal BB, Van Kylen J, Hyde JS. Simultaneous assessment of flow and BOLD signals in resting-state functional connectivity maps. NMR Biomed. 1997 Jun-Aug;10(4-5):165-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099- 1492(199706/08)10:4/5 3.0.co;2-7