Molecular Neuroscience Technical Position at UCLA

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Thu Jul 2 22:13:11 EST 1998


Not to denigrate your gracious acceptance nor to denigrate brain damage
studies (much of my own research has been in this area, and it is
central to my day-to-day clinical work), BUT: please include also the
many, many studies of brain/behavior relationships in normal, undamaged
brains--using PET, SPECT, fMRI (functional MRI), MEG
(magnetorencephalograms), and even good old EEG, evoked potentials,
etc., etc.

And even some strictly behavioral/cognitive studies which compliment
physiological studies (e.g. using FIST, a test designed to measure
separate aspects of visual memory, based on physiological/anatomical
data identifying dorsal and ventral "visual streams" from primary
visual cortex to the hippocampus--Dr. Elena Kumkova and I introduced it
at the Seattle meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society,
2-3 yrs ago).

F. LeFever









In <359a427b.2520080 at news.enteract.com> jer at enteract.com (J E) writes: 
>
>On 1 Jul 1998 03:05:24 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
>wrote:
>>Well, not "period"; perhaps "semicolon"?  Followed by a reference to
>>behavioral and cognitive aspects?  Taking the example of the Society
>>for Neuroscience: while more molecular (cellular, etc.) studies may
>>dominate papers presented at its annual meetings, there is a small
but
>>significant group of papers which include behavioral dependent and/or
>>independent variables (my own presentions are in this
>>category)--although of course based on experimental manipulations,
>>objective measurements, etc., often (usually?) involving at least
some
>>aspect of the techniques you refer to.
>
>Oh Yes! Didn't mean to be exclusionist, by any means. Behavioral
>studies of brain damage and the like rank at the top as well. ;-)
>
>Jason




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list