I've noticed several recent articles that appeal to the "cognition" of comics or the "neuroscience" of comics, particularly in popular writings. However, most of these discussions have nothing to do with the brain's processes. As a caveat to anyone who might do this, I'm inclined to repost part an old blog entry that's related:
It is easy to be enticed by the desire to discuss the brain. After all, it is the hidden key to understanding human activity, and I can see how mentioning it lends a feeling of legitimacy to talks of "narrative art." However, in most discussions (like here), it is largely irrelevant. "Word, images, and writing" can adequately be described and interestingly discussed as human behavior without invoking vague pop-psychological discussions of the brain...
It is very hard to make claims about neurological activity (like that "narrative art" involves right or left brain activity and/or their interactions) without some sort of experimentation. Hell, it's hard to make conclusive claims about the brain even with experimentation! (...which is partially what makes it so intriguing to study).
My point overall is this: as cool and interesting as it is, not all arguments need to be tied to the brain and cognition. And, in fact, some arguments are made weaker by doing so, since appealing to neuroscience is unnecessary at best and hand-waving at worst.
Figure out what your point is and talk about it. I'm guessing it actually has little to do with neuroscience directly.