Abstract
Neurobehavioral manifestations are a type of neurologic manifestation: the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional signs that reveal how brain disease and injury disturb the mind. They are the observable output of damaged or dysregulated neural systems, spanning the loss of pleasure in anhedonia, the disorders of attention and memory, the apathy and disinhibition of frontal injury, and the perceptual and consciousness disturbances that follow neurological illness. This article defines the neurobehavioral domain, sets out the principal types the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary places beneath it, traces the shift from the classical disconnection account to the modern network view of how behaviour localizes in the brain, examines the frontal-subcortical circuits whose disruption produces distinct syndromes, and reviews how these manifestations are measured, with interactive demonstrations. MeSH classifies neurobehavioral manifestations among the neurologic manifestations and within behavior and behavior mechanisms.
Keywords: neurobehavioral manifestations, behavioral neurology, frontal-subcortical circuits, lesion network mapping
What Neurobehavioral Manifestations Are
A neurobehavioral manifestation is a change in behaviour, cognition, or emotion that arises from a disturbance of the brain, and that serves as an observable sign of where and how that disturbance acts. The term joins the neurological and the behavioural on purpose: these are not free-standing psychological symptoms but the surface expression of an underlying neural lesion, circuit dysfunction, or network disruption, and they are read by the clinician as evidence about the brain that produced them. A patient who has lost the capacity for pleasure, one who cannot sustain attention, one who has become apathetic or disinhibited after a frontal injury, and one who misperceives or loses awareness of part of the world are all showing neurobehavioral manifestations, and in each case the sign points back toward a specific disorder of neural function.
The discipline that studies these signs, behavioral neurology, was founded on the insight that complex behaviour is organised by the brain in ways that focal damage can selectively dismantle. Norman Geschwind recast the classical behavioural syndromes as the product of severed connections between cortical regions rather than of damage to the regions themselves, giving the field its first systematic mechanistic framework (Geschwind, 1965a; Geschwind, 1965b). That founding move, reading a behavioural sign as evidence about neural architecture, still defines the domain: a neurobehavioral manifestation is valuable precisely because it is observable, and because its form constrains where in the brain the fault must lie.
- Neurobehavioral manifestations are the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional signs that reveal how brain disease and injury disturb the mind.
- They are the observable output of damaged or dysregulated neural systems, and their form constrains where the underlying fault lies.
- The field has moved from Geschwind's disconnection account, through Mesulam's large-scale networks and Cummings's frontal-subcortical circuits, to modern lesion network mapping.
- Lesion network mapping shows that anatomically scattered lesions producing the same manifestation converge on a common brain network.
- Because they are observable, these manifestations can be rated and quantified, with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory the standard instrument for the behavioural signs of brain disease.
The domain is broad, covering disturbances of mood, motivation, perception, consciousness, cognition, and movement, each tied to the neural system whose failure produces it. Table 1 sets out the principal families of neurobehavioral manifestation, the neural systems most associated with each, and representative signs; the MeSH subtypes and the mechanistic sections that follow take them up in turn.
| Family | Associated neural system | Representative signs |
|---|---|---|
| Affective and motivational | Limbic–cortical and frontal-subcortical reward circuits. | Anhedonia, apathy, depressed mood, mania. |
| Cognitive | Distributed transmodal cortical networks. | Memory disorders, confusion, intellectual disability. |
| Perceptual and awareness | Sensory association and attentional networks. | Perceptual disorders, consciousness disorders, lethargy. |
| Behavioural control | Orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate circuits. | Disinhibition, impaired decision-making, psychomotor disturbance. |
Types of Neurobehavioral Manifestations
In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, Neurobehavioral Manifestations is a descriptor within the neurologic manifestations, and it has twelve narrower descriptors directly beneath it, eight of which carry their own articles on this site. These narrower terms are not a theory of how behaviour is organised so much as the set of behavioural signs the indexing vocabulary singles out, and they are orthogonal rather than exclusive: a patient may show anhedonia, confusion, and a memory disorder at once, and each is a distinct manifestation rather than a point on a single scale. MeSH is an indexing classification built to retrieve the literature, not an account of how the disorders relate, so the division below is a map of the library shelves, not of the mind. Table 2 lists the narrower descriptors, each glossed from its MeSH scope and, where a live article exists, linked to it.
| Narrower term | What it is |
|---|---|
| Anhedonia | The reduced capacity to experience pleasure or to anticipate it, a core affective manifestation. |
| Catatonia | A severe psychomotor syndrome of immobility or excitement, mutism, posturing, and rigidity. |
| Communication Disorders | Disorders of the capacity to receive, process, and express language and speech. |
| Confusion | A disturbance of clear, orderly thinking and orientation, often with impaired attention. |
| Consciousness Disorders | Disturbances of the level or content of awareness, from clouding to coma. |
| Intellectual Disability | A significant limitation of intellectual function and adaptive behaviour with onset in development. |
| Lethargy | A state of drowsy inactivity and reduced responsiveness short of stupor. |
| Mania | An abnormally elevated, expansive, or irritable mood with increased activity and energy. |
| Memory Disorders | Disturbances of the registration, retention, or retrieval of information. |
| Perceptual Disorders | Disturbances of the interpretation of sensory information, including agnosias and neglect. |
| Psychogenic Polydipsia | Excessive compulsive water drinking not explained by a physiological need. |
| Psychomotor Disorders | Disturbances of the integrated motor and cognitive activity that produces willed movement. |
Localizing Behavior: From Disconnection to Networks
The central scientific problem of the neurobehavioral domain is localization: given a behavioural sign, where in the brain is the fault, and why does that location produce that sign? The modern answer has passed through three stages. The first was Geschwind's disconnection framework. Reviving and systematising a nineteenth-century idea, he argued that many behavioural syndromes arise not from damage to a cortical centre but from the severing of the white-matter connections between centres, so that intact regions can no longer communicate (Geschwind, 1965a). The second part of his monograph applied the framework to the aphasias, agnosias, and apraxias that define classical behavioral neurology, showing how a disconnection could produce a deficit that looked like the loss of a faculty (Geschwind, 1965b).
The second stage replaced the single connection with the distributed network. M.-Marsel Mesulam argued that attention, language, and memory are each served not by one centre but by large-scale networks of interconnected cortical regions, so that a given behavioural function depends on the integrity of a whole distributed system rather than any single node (Mesulam, 1990). In a broader synthesis he traced how sensory input is progressively transformed into cognition and behaviour across hierarchically organised transmodal cortex, which frames why a behavioural sign reflects the level of processing that has been disrupted rather than a discrete lost module (Mesulam, 1998). On this view a manifestation localizes to a network, and the same sign can follow damage anywhere in that network.
Frontal-Subcortical Circuits
The third stage, and the one that most directly organises the behavioural syndromes of the frontal lobe, is Jeffrey Cummings's account of the frontal-subcortical circuits. Cummings described five parallel circuits linking regions of the frontal cortex through the basal ganglia and thalamus and back, and showed that disruption at any point along a circuit produces a characteristic behavioural syndrome (Cummings, 1993). Three of these circuits are behaviourally distinct and clinically central: the dorsolateral prefrontal circuit, whose disruption yields an executive, dysexecutive syndrome; the orbitofrontal circuit, whose disruption yields disinhibition, impulsivity, and altered social conduct; and the anterior cingulate circuit, whose disruption yields apathy and, at the extreme, akinetic mutism.
The orbitofrontal syndrome has its own mechanistic account in Antonio Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis, which links ventromedial prefrontal damage to impaired decision-making and altered social behaviour by way of a disrupted connection between emotional-bodily states and the evaluation of choices (Damasio, 1996). The anterior cingulate syndrome corresponds to apathy, which Robert Marin established as a distinct neuropsychiatric syndrome, a disorder of motivation separable from depression and with its own basis and assessment (Marin, 1991). The affective manifestations more broadly, depressed mood, anhedonia, and mania, map onto the limbic-cortical circuitry whose dysfunction produces them, which Price and Drevets charted in detail (Price & Drevets, 2010). Across these accounts the lesson is the same as Cummings's: a behavioural syndrome is the signature of a particular circuit, and naming the syndrome names the circuit.
Lesion Network Mapping
The most important recent development returns to Geschwind's problem with modern tools. Michael Fox and colleagues developed lesion network mapping, a method that uses the human connectome to show that lesions producing the same manifestation, though scattered across different brain locations, are connected to a common brain network (Fox, 2018). This updates the disconnection logic with connectome data: the reason heterogeneous lesions produce the same sign is that each disrupts the same functional network, even when the lesions themselves share no single anatomical location. It reconciles the old debate between localizationist and network views by making the network, not the lesion site, the unit of explanation.
The method has produced striking worked examples. Darby and colleagues showed that lesions associated with acquired criminal behaviour, though anatomically dispersed, localize to a single network involved in moral decision-making, giving a network-based account of a behaviour that no classical localization could explain (Darby et al., 2018). Siddiqi and colleagues then synthesised lesions, brain stimulation, and connectomics into a general causal framework for linking brain circuits to behaviour, arguing that convergent causal methods can map the circuits behind a manifestation more reliably than any single method alone (Siddiqi et al., 2022). The through-line from Geschwind to Siddiqi is unbroken: a behavioural manifestation is evidence about a disrupted neural system, and the science consists in identifying which system.
Measurement and Assessment
Because neurobehavioral manifestations are observable, they can be rated and quantified, and the domain depends on instruments that turn a clinical impression into a score. The standard instrument for the behavioural manifestations of brain disease is the Neuropsychiatric Inventory, developed by Cummings and colleagues, which assesses twelve behavioural domains, from delusions and agitation to apathy and disinhibition, scoring each by the product of its frequency and its severity (Cummings et al., 1994). For cognitive manifestations the archetypal bedside screen is the Mini-Mental State Examination, which operationalises the cognitive state into a graded score an examiner can obtain in minutes (Folstein et al., 1975).
Formal diagnostic classification sits alongside these instruments. The DSM-5 reclassified the cognitive manifestations into major and mild neurocognitive disorders, defining how these signs are formally diagnosed and graded by severity (Sachdev et al., 2014). And because the neuropsychiatric manifestations of dementia are where these signs matter most in practice, current reviews of the behavioural and psychological symptoms of Alzheimer's disease catalogue the full cluster, from apathy and depression to agitation and psychosis, and the treatment paradigms aimed at them (Lanctôt et al., 2017). Measurement is what makes the domain a science rather than a catalogue: a manifestation that can be scored can be tracked, compared across patients, and tied to the neural system behind it.
Figure
Figure 1
From Lesion to Behavioral Manifestation
Interactive Demonstrations
The three demonstrations below make the core ideas manipulable. The first lets the reader disrupt each of the three behaviourally distinct frontal-subcortical circuits and see the syndrome that results. The second scatters lesions across the brain and shows how those connected to a shared network converge on one manifestation, the logic of lesion network mapping. The third is a Neuropsychiatric Inventory scorer that builds a behavioural profile from the frequency and severity of each domain, the measurement at the heart of the worked example.
Demo 1 — The frontal-subcortical circuits
Three of Cummings’s five circuits are behaviourally distinct. Each runs from a region of the frontal cortex through the basal ganglia and thalamus and back, and disruption anywhere along it yields a characteristic syndrome. Select a circuit to disrupt and read the syndrome it produces — a fixed mapping from circuit to behaviour, not a random pairing.
Disrupting the orbitofrontal circuit produces the disinhibited syndrome: impulsivity, loss of social restraint, tactlessness and altered conduct; impaired value-guided decision-making.
Demo 2 — Lesion network mapping
Why do lesions at different places cause the same sign? Toggle the candidate lesions. Those connected to the shared network — wherever they sit — converge on one common manifestation; lesions off the network, however large, do not produce it. This is the logic that updates Geschwind’s disconnection account with connectome data.
1 lesion selected at distinct sites; 1 connected to the network. Those lesion converges on the same common manifestation, even though their anatomical sites differ.
Demo 3 — The Neuropsychiatric Inventory scorer
The NPI turns behavioural manifestations into a number. For each domain set how often it occurs (frequency 1–4) and how disruptive it is (severity 1–3); the domain score is their product, and the total is the sum across all twelve, from 0 to 144. The defaults reproduce the Worked Example.
| Domain | Frequency (0–4) | Severity (0–3) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delusions | 3 | 2 | 6 |
| Hallucinations | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Agitation / aggression | 4 | 3 | 12 |
| Depression / dysphoria | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Anxiety | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elation / euphoria | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apathy / indifference | 4 | 2 | 8 |
| Disinhibition | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Irritability / lability | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aberrant motor behaviour | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sleep / nighttime behaviour | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Appetite / eating | 0 | 0 | 0 |
NPI total 30 of 144. The highest-scoring domain is agitation / aggression at 12, which weighting by frequency and severity marks as the first target of treatment.
Worked Example
Consider how the Neuropsychiatric Inventory turns a set of behavioural manifestations into a quantity. For each of its twelve domains the inventory records how often the behaviour occurs, on a frequency scale from 1 (occasionally, less than once a week) to 4 (very frequently, daily or continuously), and how disruptive it is, on a severity scale from 1 (mild) to 3 (severe). The score for a domain is the product of its frequency and its severity, so a single domain can range from 1 to 12, and the total score, the sum across all twelve domains, can range from 0 to 144.
Take a patient with Alzheimer's disease showing four of the domains. Delusions occur frequently and are moderately disruptive: frequency 3 times severity 2 gives 6. Agitation occurs very frequently and is severe: frequency 4 times severity 3 gives the domain maximum of 12. Apathy occurs very frequently and is moderate: frequency 4 times severity 2 gives 8. Depression occurs occasionally and is moderate: frequency 2 times severity 2 gives 4. The remaining eight domains are absent and score 0. The total is 6 plus 12 plus 8 plus 4, which equals 30 out of a possible 144.
The worked lesson is that the inventory does not merely note which behaviours are present but weights each by how often it happens and how much it disrupts, so that a single severe, constant manifestation like the agitation here contributes as much as several mild, occasional ones combined. That weighting is what lets a behavioural profile be compared across patients and tracked over time, and it is why agitation, scoring the domain maximum, would be the first target of treatment in this patient (Cummings et al., 1994; Lanctôt et al., 2017).
Discussion
Neurobehavioral manifestations occupy a distinctive place in the clinical neurosciences because they are at once the symptom the patient brings and the evidence the clinician reads. The abnormality is behavioural, mood, motivation, perception, cognition, and movement, yet its value lies in what it reveals about the brain that produced it, which is why the history of the field is a history of increasingly precise accounts of how behaviour localizes. The arc from Geschwind's severed connections, through Mesulam's distributed networks and Cummings's parallel circuits, to Fox's connectome-based network mapping is a single sustained effort to answer one question: why does damage here produce that sign?
The unifying theme is that a behavioural manifestation is the signature of a disrupted neural system, not a free-standing psychological event. Anhedonia indexes a reward circuit, apathy an anterior cingulate circuit, disinhibition an orbitofrontal one, and a criminal disinhibition that no single lesion site explains indexes a distributed moral-decision network. The open problems are those of integration and causation: combining lesions, stimulation, and connectomics into a causal map reliable enough to predict which circuit a new manifestation implicates, and turning that map into targeted treatment. Measurement underwrites the whole enterprise, because only a manifestation that can be scored can be tied, patient by patient, to the system behind it.
Current Directions
The most active front is the drive to make the localization of behaviour causal and therapeutic rather than merely correlational. Lesion network mapping has shown that heterogeneous lesions producing one manifestation share a network, and the current programme is to convert those network maps into stimulation targets, so that a circuit identified from lesions becomes a site for therapeutic neuromodulation (Fox, 2018; Siddiqi et al., 2022). The synthesis of lesions, brain stimulation, and connectomics into a single causal framework is explicitly aimed at this: a causal map of which circuit produces which behaviour is also a map of where to intervene.
A second direction is the extension of the method to behaviours once thought beyond neurological explanation. The demonstration that acquired criminal behaviour localizes to a common network has opened the network analysis of complex social and moral manifestations, and of the forensic and ethical questions they raise (Darby et al., 2018). In parallel, the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia remain a major clinical target, where mapping the neuropsychiatric manifestations onto circuits is guiding new treatment paradigms for signs, such as agitation and apathy, that are among the most burdensome features of the disease (Lanctôt et al., 2017).
Common Misconceptions
- A behavioral manifestation is a psychological problem separate from the brain.
- A neurobehavioral manifestation is the observable output of a disturbed neural system; its form is evidence about where in the brain the fault lies, which is the founding premise of behavioral neurology (Geschwind, 1965a; Mesulam, 1990).
- Each behavioral sign must come from damage to one specific brain spot.
- Lesion network mapping shows that anatomically scattered lesions can produce the same manifestation because each is connected to a common network; the unit of localization is the network, not the single site (Fox, 2018; Darby et al., 2018).
- Apathy is just a form of depression.
- Apathy is a distinct neuropsychiatric syndrome, a disorder of motivation separable from depression with its own basis in the anterior cingulate circuit and its own assessment (Marin, 1991; Cummings, 1993).
- These manifestations are too subjective to measure.
- Because they are observable, they can be rated and scored: the Neuropsychiatric Inventory quantifies behavioural signs by frequency and severity, and the Mini-Mental State Examination grades cognitive state, turning impressions into comparable numbers (Cummings et al., 1994; Folstein et al., 1975).
Glossary
- Anhedonia.
- The reduced capacity to experience or anticipate pleasure; a core affective manifestation indexing reward-circuit dysfunction.
- Apathy.
- A distinct neuropsychiatric syndrome of reduced motivation, separable from depression, associated with the anterior cingulate circuit.
- Behavioral neurology.
- The discipline that studies the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional manifestations of brain disease and reads them as evidence about neural function.
- Connectome.
- The comprehensive map of structural and functional connections in the human brain; lesion network mapping uses it to link scattered lesions to a shared network.
- Disconnection syndrome.
- A behavioural deficit produced by severing the white-matter connections between cortical regions rather than by damage to the regions themselves; Geschwind's founding framework.
- Disinhibition.
- A loss of behavioural and social restraint, with impulsivity and altered conduct, characteristic of orbitofrontal circuit disruption.
- Frontal-subcortical circuits.
- Five parallel loops linking frontal cortex through the basal ganglia and thalamus; disruption of each produces a characteristic behavioural syndrome.
- Hemispatial neglect.
- A failure to attend to or act upon one side of space, typically after right parietal injury; a classic neurobehavioral sign of disrupted attentional networks.
- Lesion network mapping.
- A method using the human connectome to show that lesions producing the same manifestation are connected to a common brain network, even when the lesions are anatomically scattered.
- Mania.
- An abnormally elevated, expansive, or irritable mood with increased activity and energy; an affective manifestation and a narrower MeSH descriptor.
- Neurobehavioral manifestation.
- A change in behaviour, cognition, or emotion arising from a disturbance of the brain and serving as an observable sign of that disturbance.
- Neuropsychiatric Inventory.
- The standard instrument for quantifying the behavioural manifestations of brain disease, scoring each of twelve domains by the product of frequency and severity.
- Somatic marker hypothesis.
- Damasio's account linking ventromedial prefrontal damage to impaired decision-making through a disrupted connection between bodily-emotional states and the evaluation of choices.
- Transmodal cortex.
- Higher-order cortical regions that integrate information across sensory modalities; Mesulam's level at which sensation is transformed into cognition and behaviour.
Key Researchers
Jeffrey L. Cummings
(University of Nevada, Las Vegas). Defined the five frontal-subcortical circuits underlying distinct behavioural syndromes and created the Neuropsychiatric Inventory, the standard instrument for quantifying behavioural manifestations of brain disease. ORCID · Faculty · Google Scholar
Antonio Damasio
(University of Southern California). Proposed the somatic marker hypothesis linking ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making and social behaviour, a mechanistic account of an orbitofrontal neurobehavioral syndrome. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia · Wikidata
Michael D. Fox
(Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital). Pioneered lesion network mapping, showing that lesions producing the same manifestation localize to a common brain network; founding director of the Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia
Norman Geschwind
(Harvard Medical School). Father of modern behavioral neurology; his disconnection framework recast behavioural syndromes as the product of severed white-matter connections. Wikipedia
Kenneth M. Heilman
(University of Florida). Behavioral neurologist whose work on hemispatial neglect, emotional communication, and apraxia defined much of the clinical phenomenology of neurobehavioral manifestations. Wikipedia · Google Scholar · Wikidata
M.-Marsel Mesulam
(Northwestern University; Mesulam Center for Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer's Disease). Developed the large-scale neurocognitive-network account of behaviour, grounding attention, language, and memory in distributed transmodal cortex. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikidata
Frequently Asked Questions
What are neurobehavioral manifestations?
They are the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional signs that reveal how brain disease and injury disturb the mind. Each is the observable output of a damaged or dysregulated neural system, and its form points back toward the underlying fault.
How do they differ from psychiatric symptoms in general?
The defining feature is that a neurobehavioral manifestation is read as evidence about the brain that produced it. The behaviour is valued not only as a problem in itself but as a localizing sign, which is the founding premise of behavioral neurology.
What is a disconnection syndrome?
It is a behavioural deficit produced by severing the white-matter connections between cortical regions rather than by damage to the regions themselves. Norman Geschwind revived and systematised this idea, giving the field its first mechanistic framework.
What are the frontal-subcortical circuits?
They are five parallel loops linking the frontal cortex through the basal ganglia and thalamus and back. Jeffrey Cummings showed that disrupting each produces a characteristic syndrome: a dysexecutive syndrome, a disinhibited syndrome, and an apathetic syndrome.
What is lesion network mapping?
It is a method that uses the human connectome to show that lesions producing the same manifestation, even when scattered across different brain locations, are connected to a common network. It makes the network, not the single lesion site, the unit of localization.
How are neurobehavioral manifestations measured?
By rating instruments that turn observation into a score. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory scores twelve behavioural domains by frequency times severity, and the Mini-Mental State Examination grades cognitive state, so that signs can be compared across patients and tracked over time.
Is apathy the same as depression?
No. Apathy is a distinct neuropsychiatric syndrome, a disorder of motivation that can occur without depressed mood and is associated with the anterior cingulate circuit. Distinguishing the two matters because they have different bases and treatments.
Why do these manifestations matter for cognitive science?
Because they let the organisation of the mind be inferred from how brain damage dismantles it. A behavioural sign constrains where the fault must lie, so studying these manifestations maps the neural systems that normally produce cognition, emotion, and behaviour.
References
Cummings, J. L. (1993). Frontal-subcortical circuits and human behavior. Archives of Neurology, 50(8), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1993.00540080076020
Cummings, J. L., Mega, M., Gray, K., Rosenberg-Thompson, S., Carusi, D. A., & Gornbein, J. (1994). The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: Comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology, 44(12), 2308–2314. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.44.12.2308
Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 351(1346), 1413–1420. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0125
Darby, R. R., Horn, A., Cushman, F., & Fox, M. D. (2018). Lesion network localization of criminal behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(3), 601–606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706587115
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
Fox, M. D. (2018). Mapping symptoms to brain networks with the human connectome. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(23), 2237–2245. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1706158
Geschwind, N. (1965). Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. I. Brain, 88(2), 237–294. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/88.2.237
Geschwind, N. (1965). Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. II. Brain, 88(3), 585–644. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/88.3.585
Lanctôt, K. L., Amatniek, J., Ancoli-Israel, S., Arnold, S. E., Ballard, C., Cohen-Mansfield, J., ... Boot, B. (2017). Neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms of Alzheimer's disease: New treatment paradigms. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions, 3(3), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2017.07.001
Marin, R. S. (1991). Apathy: A neuropsychiatric syndrome. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 3(3), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.3.3.243
Mesulam, M.-M. (1990). Large-scale neurocognitive networks and distributed processing for attention, language, and memory. Annals of Neurology, 28(5), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410280502
Mesulam, M.-M. (1998). From sensation to cognition. Brain, 121(6), 1013–1052. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/121.6.1013
Price, J. L., & Drevets, W. C. (2010). Neurocircuitry of mood disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35(1), 192–216. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.104
Sachdev, P. S., Blacker, D., Blazer, D. G., Ganguli, M., Jeste, D. V., Paulsen, J. S., & Petersen, R. C. (2014). Classifying neurocognitive disorders: The DSM-5 approach. Nature Reviews Neurology, 10(11), 634–642. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.181
Siddiqi, S. H., Kording, K. P., Parvizi, J., & Fox, M. D. (2022). Causal mapping of human brain function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23(6), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00583-8