Functional Organization of the Brain: Does It Still Make Sense to Talk About “Brain Areas” in Modern Neuroscience?

Doctoral researcher Marta Arbizu Gómez explains why modern neuroscience is questioning brain areas and what the new paradigm of the brain’s functional organization is. 

Executive summary of this article’s key points:

1. The end of the classic model: A recent Nature Neuroscience article challenges the traditional approach, proposing that the brain’s functional organization is not based on isolated anatomical areas, but on dynamic, continuous, distributed networks.

2. Direct impact on neurorehabilitation: This paradigm shift transforms clinical practice, showing that cognitive deficits are better understood as perturbations in network connectivity rather than merely focal lesions.

3. Clinical innovation and connectivity: Leading researchers in Spain, such as the BioBizkaia Institute, and stimulation platforms such as NeuronUP are already applying this model to design comprehensive interventions that optimize brain function rather than attempting to “activate” a specific area.

Why do we assume areas in the brain’s functional organization?

Since the beginnings of modern neuroscience , one idea has guided a large part of brain research: that the cortex is divided into well-defined areas, each with a specific function. Thus, we speak of the “language area,” the “motor area,” or the “memory area,” assuming that understanding the brain largely consists of locating where each cognitive process occurs.

This approach, known as the arealization paradigm, has been extremely influential and useful. However, what if this way of thinking were oversimplifying the reality of how the brain functions?

This approach, known as the arealization paradigm, has been extremely influential and useful. However, what if this way of thinking were oversimplifying the reality of how the brain functions?

Why are we questioning brain areas?: the classic model and the current view of the brain

The authors of the article—Benjamin Y. Hayden, Sarah R. Heilbronner, and Seng Bum Michael Yoo—do not deny that anatomical differences exist in the cerebral cortex. What they question is something subtler but fundamental: whether brain areas are the central organizing principle of cognitive function.

According to the authors, the historical emphasis placed on areas is due not so much to solid empirical evidence as to their conceptual convenience: areas offer a simple way to answer complex questions about how the brain works.

In reality, the debate is not about whether anatomical areas exist, but whether they should be at the center of our explanation of brain function. The contrast between the two approaches can be summarized as follows:

Classic brain model, an area-based approach	Current view of the brain, a distributed and dynamic approach
Each area has a specific function	Functions emerge from networks and gradients
Clear anatomical boundaries	Continuous and overlapping transitions
“Where does it occur?”	“How is it implemented?”
Localized functions	Distributed coding

From this new perspective, brain organization is no longer understood as a mosaic of isolated compartments and is instead conceived as a dynamic, interconnected, multidimensional system.

Anatomy and neural activity: from anatomical boundaries to dynamic networks

What does brain anatomy tell us?

One of the article’s central arguments is that anatomy does not clearly support the existence of well-defined functional areas:

• The different methods used to divide the brain (cytoarchitecture, connectivity, receptors, transcriptomics) do not agree with one another.
• Even boundaries considered “classic” change depending on the criterion used.
• Instead of sharp boundaries, continuous gradients and gradual transitions appear, spanning several areas.

Recent molecular and genetic atlases reinforce this idea, showing clusters of neurons that do not respect traditional boundaries. In other words, the brain appears to be organized according to multiple overlapping principles, not a single one.

What does neural activity tell us about the brain?

Advances in large-scale neural recording techniques (such as Neuropixels and two-photon imaging) have made it possible to observe the activity of hundreds of thousands of neurons simultaneously. The results are surprising:

• Functions such as decision-making, memory, movement, and value appear distributed throughout the brain.
• Large-scale studies show that the same cognitive variables are encoded in highly diverse regions, without respecting classic anatomical boundaries.
• Many differences attributed to “areas” can be explained just as well by gradients, connectivity, or sampling biases.

This does not mean that “everything is everywhere,” but rather that functional organization does not necessarily coincide with anatomical areas.

How is brain function actually organized?

The article proposes a more flexible and pluralistic approach. Instead of looking for functions in specific areas, it suggests focusing on other organizing principles, such as:

• Distributed networks (for example, language and face recognition).
• Large-scale functional gradients.
• Connectivity patterns.
• Population dynamics, in which information is represented in high-dimensional subspaces.

From this perspective, the key question is no longer “where does a function occur?” but rather “how is it implemented?”

The single-function trap and its clinical impact

The authors warn of a frequent conceptual trap: the single-function fallacy. Assuming that, if an area exists, it must have an exclusive and particularly important function can lead to:

• Looking for functional differences that may not exist.
• Overlooking shared and distributed functions, which may be the most important ones.
• Limiting the development of new explanatory models that better fit current data.

Adopting a less area-centered view makes it possible to formulate richer theories about how the brain integrates, separates, and transforms information.

Implications of this conceptual shift in the brain for applied and clinical neuroscience

This conceptual shift is not merely theoretical. It has direct implications for:

• The interpretation of neuroimaging and neurophysiology studies.
• The design of cognitive tasks and experimental paradigms.
• Understanding neurological and neurodegenerative disorders, in which alterations are often distributed rather than focal.

Understanding the brain as a dynamic and distributed system helps explain why many cognitive deficits do not fit well with “localized” lesions or alterations.

What other groups work from a brain connectivity perspective?

The idea that the brain functions as a network system is not new, but over the past fifteen years it has gained increasingly strong empirical support. Various international groups have driven this paradigm shift, relying on large databases and the development of advanced analytical methods.

The Human Connectome Project was one of the major drivers of the systematic study of large-scale structural and functional connectivity. Using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (diffusion MRI and fMRI), this project made it possible to characterize the brain as a complex graph, in which regions are understood as nodes interconnected by dynamic networks. Its impact was decisive in shifting the focus from “isolated areas” to connectivity patterns and distributed architectures.

Research at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences has been key to studying large-scale functional gradients, showing that brain organization does not always follow discrete boundaries, but rather continuous transitions spanning multiple regions. This work has reinforced the idea that function emerges from distributed organizing axes rather than closed compartments.

From a molecular perspective, the Allen Institute has shown that transcriptomic and cellular patterns also do not strictly respect the classic boundaries of cortical areas. Genetic and cellular organization appears as a complex mosaic, with overlaps and gradients that challenge the idea of rigid functional compartments.

The BioBizkaia Institute’s approach to the brain’s functional organization

Along these lines, the group led by Jesús M. Cortés, research director at NeuronUP and Ikerbasque professor in the Computational Neuroimaging Laboratory at the BioBizkaia Institute, has spent years developing models based on structural and functional connectivity. Its central paradigm is clear:

• Cognitive functions are represented in distributed networks, not isolated areas.
• Neurological alterations do not simply affect “one region,” but rather specific patterns of disconnection within particular brain networks.

From this perspective, conditions such as stroke, epilepsy, and neurodegenerative diseases are not understood as focal lesions with local effects, but as perturbations of network architectures, each with a particular connectomic signature.

This approach makes it possible to:

• Characterize individualized disconnection profiles.
• Relate structural alterations to dynamic functional changes.
• Design rehabilitation interventions better tailored to the affected network pattern.

Thus, brain connectivity research not only reinforces the critique of the strictly areal paradigm, but also offers an operational framework for understanding both the healthy and pathological brain.

How does this view of the brain fit with NeuronUP?

At NeuronUP, we work with a functional conception of the brain based on plasticity, interconnection, and the distribution of functions. This article reinforces that view by showing that:

• Cognitive functions do not belong to a single “location,” but to shared networks and dynamics.
• Cognitive rehabilitation can benefit from comprehensive approaches that train functions across domains.
• Digital tools make it possible to work with these distributed systems, promoting adaptation and functional reorganization.

From this perspective, rehabilitation does not seek to “activate an area,” but to optimize patterns of brain function.

Conclusion

The Nature Neuroscience article invites us to rethink one of the most deeply rooted assumptions in neuroscience: that understanding the brain means locating functions in specific areas. Current evidence points to a far more complex, flexible, and distributed organization. Accepting this complexity does not weaken neuroscience; on the contrary, it opens the door to more realistic models and more effective interventions. 

Along this path, combining basic research, large-scale data analysis, and intervention tools such as NeuronUP is key to advancing toward a more complete understanding of the human brain.

References

• Hayden BY, Heilbronner SR, Yoo SBM. Rethinking the centrality of brain areas in understanding functional organization. Nature Neuroscience. 2026;29:267–278. doi:10.1038/s41593-025-02166-z.

If you enjoyed this blog post about the brain’s functional organization, you may also be interested in these NeuronUP articles: