[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Plasticity and Physiotherapy
I don't know how many will be able to access this:
On Jun 26, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
> Huw, agreed. From what I've been reading in the past few days, an important part of the big change in views has been a recognition of the importance of wide-ranging connections that link various cortical areas, and also link these to subcortical structures. These networks are being built throughout ontogenesis, and the frontal and prefrontal cortices play a central role running them. (That takes us once again into the distinction between lower and higher psychological functions, interestingly.) Whereas the static model allowed for change (learning and memory) in the form of synaptogenesis, such changes would be local. That was fine when people believed in quasi-phrenological maps, or innate brain modules. But if diffuse networks are doing the most important work (and Fuster is one of those who argues forcibly that they are), a different type of change is going on. (Namely the building of pathways.)
> Mike, these networks do indeed look strikingly like functional systems. For example, this from Johnson's Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience:
> "research has been moving on from the study of specific regions of the brain to the exploration of the linkages and connections among regions. There is evidence that from middle childhood onward cortical networks make longer-range connections, become less linked to subcortical regions, and become increasingly hierarchical. By school age, these networks process and transmit information as efficiently as do those of adults. As each region becomes increasingly individually specialized, it takes its place in an emerging network of coactivated structures. Many of these networks link to parts of the prefrontal cortex."
> "“For example, in a task that requires visually guided action, a variety of visual and motor areas will be coactivated along with multimodal integration areas. If | the task is repeated sufficiently often then these patterns of coactivation will be strengthened, and specialization of individual regions will proceed within this context of overall patterns of activation”
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:36 PM, mike cole wrote:
>> All of this emphasizes the importance of thinking in terms of functional
>> systems and inter-functional relations
>> a la Luria..... i think.
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Huw Lloyd <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
>>> Yes, though the elmination of neurons would induce basic circuitry change
>>> too, by removing noise from the system for instance. Irrespective of the
>>> scientific validity, it doesn't equate to a static model. Whilst even
>>> considering an unchanging circuit, there is still plenty of room for
>>> changing behaviour. Part of the problem here is what constitutes the
>>> circuit that implements changeable behaviour. It's perfectly possible to
>>> implement many interacting levels of 'soft' circuits within a 'hard'
>>> On 26 June 2012 19:05, Martin Packer <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> No, but change would be limited to the formation of new synaptic
>>>> connections, or their elimination. The basic circuity would not change,
>>>> was the view. Rees discusses this.
>>>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>>> However, this constraint would would not prevent change.
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca mailing list
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list