UNILATERAL NEGLECT

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Sat Dec 12 22:15:21 EST 1998


what you cite is a good example of how experience drives neural dynamics
=in-general=.

it's an example of the many Neuroscience experimental results (almost
all do) that disclose how (the development of "micromods" that encode)
Learning derives in that which is experienced, and how such alters the
information-processing dynamics and capabilities of nervous systems.

(It's also an example of the development of new "senses" that I
mentioned in a prior post.)

With respect to NDT's stuff, the importance of experimental results such
as what you cite, becomes significantly-increased because such stuff
Discloses the Physical Reality of the behavioral shift inherent in the
"talking-at-a-distance-to-unseen-others-before-and-after-the-invention-of-radio
example (at the end of AoK' "short-paper" section)... why it is that
doing the work to understand how the brain processes information
simultaneously alters the way that the brain processes information, the
worth of such, the possibility of Abuse inherent in such (which is the
=Only= thing with respct to which I Assert Propriety, etc.).

Experimental results such as what you cite flat-out Verifies NDT's
"difficult" stuff. (There's sufficient citation of the same in AoK,
BTW.) K. P. Collins

RonBlue wrote:
> 
> >(2) Unilateral neglect is not a sensory "deprivation" or "loss", but
> >may better be described as "unilateral inattention".  It may affect
> >more than one perceptual domain (e.g. visual, auditory, somatosensory)
> >but visual effects are most often studied.  It must be distinguished
> >from hemispatial SENSORY loss such as a visual "field cut" or
> >hemianopsia.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> Related to this was a very interesting report that prisms which pushed the
> total visual field to the good "right" hemisphere allowed significant increase
> in abilities to see the left visual when the prisms were removed.   The effect
> occurred relative fast but required additional training to keep the effect
> up.   It was strongly significant over controls.   The article was in either
> Science or Nature within the last three months.  I do not remember the title.
> 
> Ron Blue



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list