Which statement best describes the study design shift described in the material?

• A. Using case studies to illuminate modular architecture rather than relying on double dissociations
• B. Relying solely on group statistics
• C. Focusing only on neuroimaging data
• D. Avoiding case studies altogether

Answer: (A)

The main idea is a shift toward using detailed case studies to illuminate how brain regions map onto distinct cognitive modules, rather than relying solely on double dissociations to infer modularity. Case studies provide vivid lesion–deficit mappings that show which areas are necessary for specific functions and how those functions relate within a modular architecture. They capture individual variability, lesion specifics, and compensatory effects, offering nuance that group-level double-dissociation evidence alone may miss. Double dissociations are useful for arguing against a single shared resource, but they can oversimplify the brain’s organization; combining case-based evidence with other data gives a fuller picture of modularity. The other options miss this emphasis: relying only on group statistics washes out individual lesion patterns; focusing only on neuroimaging yields correlational data without causal, lesion-based insight; and avoiding case studies foregoes the rich, clinically grounded mappings of function to structure.