Our knowledge of the functions of the prefrontal cortex, often called executive, supervisory, or control, has been transformed over the past 50 years. After operationally defining terms for clarification, we review the impact of advances in functional, structural, and theoretical levels of understanding upon neuropsychological assessment practice as a means of identifying 11 principles/challenges relating to assessment of executive function. Three of these were already known 50 years ago, and 8 have been confirmed or emerged since. Key themes over this period have been the emergence of the use of naturalistic tests to address issues of “ecological validity”; discovery of the complexity of the frontal lobe control system; invention of new tests for clinical use; development of key theoretical frameworks that address the issue of the role of prefrontal cortex systems in the organization of human cognition; the move toward considering brain systems rather than brain regions; the advent of functional neuroimaging, and its emerging integration into clinical practice. Despite these huge advances, however, practicing neuropsychologists are still desperately in need of new ways of measuring executive function. We discuss pathways by which this might happen, including decoupling the two levels of explanation (information processing; brain structure) and integrating very recent technological advances into the neuropsychologist’s toolbox. (JINS, 2017, 23, 755–767)

The Province of Ontario recognized the pressing need to improve the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of brain disorders. It also recognized that maximizing the existing strengths through a province-wide integrated approach was a pivotal mechanism. To achieve this, the Province established the Ontario Brain Institute. The goal of this article is to introduce the elements of the Ontario Brain Institute to the neuroscience community: the motivation for establishing it, the philosophy behind its creation, the principles guiding its development, the rapid evolution of its functional structure, the tools available to achieve its vision, and the management structure to ensure success. The singular goal of the Province and the Ontario Brain Institute is a comprehensive system that assures that basic research is embedded in the clinical system and is facilitating product development to accelerate benefits to both health and the economy of health: science with impact.

Proceeding from the assumptions that specific frontal regions control discrete functions and that very basic cognitive processes can be systematically manipulated to reveal those functions, recent reports have demonstrated consistent anatomical/functional relationships: dorsomedial for energization, left dorsolateral for task setting, and right dorsolateral for monitoring. There is no central executive. There are, instead, numerous domain general processes discretely distributed across several frontal regions that act in concert to accomplish control. Beyond these functions, there are two additional “frontal” anatomical/functional relationships: ventral–medial/orbital for emotional and behavioral regulation, and frontopolar for integrative—even meta-cognitive—functions. (JINS, 2011, 17, 759–765)

Many people who sustain traumatic brain injuries (TBI) have poor psychosocial outcomes that have been related to the use of avoidant coping. A major obstacle to understanding the mechanisms of this relationship are the self-report measures by which coping has been traditionally evaluated. The purpose of the present study was to compare coping behavior during a simulated real-world stress test with self-reported coping. People with moderate-to-severe TBI and matched controls completed the Baycrest Psychosocial Stress Test (BPST) where coping behavior was evaluated, and also completed the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WOC). While there were no group differences in self- or significant-other-reported behavior on the WOC, the TBI group engaged in more avoidant than planful behavior on the BPST, while the control group displayed the opposite pattern of behavior. Moreover, in the control group there were positive relations between behavior on the BPST and self-reported coping on the WOC, but no such relation within the TBI group. Secondary analyses allowed for TBI participants to be characterized as “planners” or “avoiders.” This is the first study, to our knowledge, to report behavioral differences in coping post-TBI. Future work investigating the moderators of these differences may have significant implications for rehabilitative intervention. (JINS, 2011, 17, 248–255)

This article reports the outcome of a meta-analysis of the relation between the frontal lobes and memory as measured by tests of recognition, cued recall, and free recall. We reviewed experiments in which patients with documented, circumscribed frontal pathology were compared with normal control subjects on these three types of tests. Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is strong evidence that frontal damage disrupts performance on all three types of tests, with the greatest impairment in free recall, and the smallest in recognition. (JINS, 1995, 1, 525–536.)