An investigation shows that damage to regions with high density creates higher shortages but damage to other locations creates different shortages. Hubs are the center of networks that indicate points of importance for network function but research cannot locate where hubs are. The geography of the brain is known for being able to locate brain damage and small lesions in the brain would ┬áhave a bigger effect than what its thought to have. Following circumscribed lesions, severe cognitive and behavioral consequences of explanations would be broad. One view of hubs emphasize the number of connections between regions and another view is that regions of the default mode network(DMN) would have higher ratings on measures of important networks.. Degree measures the number of connections and a degree may not reflect the importance of network function. It is predicted that lesions of brain regions which show activity with brain systems would produce large effects on the brain which is split into different systems based on activity from the fMRI. There are two predictions and the first one is that lesions which are located in densities which are higher will affect processing and will produce impairment but the second prediction is that the lesions located with low scores will have less repercussions. An investigation took place with 30 patients, 19 with focal lesions to six target and 11 with focal lesions to two control, and the prediction of this investigation was that damage to the brain regions would be more direct and participate with more brain systems. The results of this investigation was that the control group was larger than the target group but the sizes were not very different. Neuropsychological reports were reviewed by psychologists and they rated the patient’s degree of impairment. The results of the impairment ratings showed that all nine domains were present in the patients with target lesions but only seven of the nine domains were presents in the patients with lesions to target locations. The average domain of a target lesion producing impairment is 6.89 but the average domain of control lesions producing impairment is 2.64. Follow-up analysis were performed and and the result of them was that no evidence was found that the main finding was accounted for by other factors other than location of the lesion. The lesions were apart from the target and control regions of interest and locations which is why it is important to figure out if the tissue that was lesioned had properties that was needed to detach the target and control locations. Lesion masks were used to extract the network properties of the corresponding tissues which resulted in measures of the degree being less with expectations. When lesion sampling, idealized and observed was not a measure of degree which predicted cognitive outcomes but participation was the best predictor. Severe and large cognitive impairment was created when there was damage to target locations. Patients have different degrees of impairment and recover differently. Communication between functional systems can be affected by focal regions which are centered on high brain regions. Control lesions tend to affect less systems that target lesions would. Support was found when systems were affected by lesions. Degree does not identify regions of broad importance. Language impairment was common in the target group even though many target group patients had normal language. This investigation shows the differences in the effects of the groups and the location of the lesions.