IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

good neuro textbooks

Stephan Anagnostaras stephan at nospam.ucla.edu
Fri Oct 23 21:21:57 EST 1998

The one with Breedlove "Biological Psychology" is pretty good. Level =
senior undergrad

The Bears Connors Paradiso Neuroscience book is better on basic
neuroscience but stinks in behavior or learning and memory. Level = Senior

Carlson is pretty good for a very basic text. Level = maybe 2nd year undergrad
Pinel is good for an even more basic text. = 1st year undergrad

The standard Kandel book is good for basic neuroscience. Again it stinks
for behavior, cognitive, or L+M.   Level = grad. I have seen this used as
an undergad text, I think this is crazy. Just my 2c. 

- the small Kandel book is a little better in this respect, worse in basic
neuro though. Level = senior undergrad

For human neuropsych the Kolb & Whishaw book is excellent.  Level = senior
undegrad or grad

For cognitive neuroscience the Gazzaniga mondo-text is quite nice.  Level = grad
- I think the choice between K+W and Gazzaniga depends on the class focus,
they are quite different even though they cover the same kinds of

Just my 2c worth,
Good luck
Stephan Anagnostaras, Ph.D
UCLA Dept of Neurobiology
stephan at lifesci.ucla.edu

In article <70qpq7$cb2 at gap.cco.caltech.edu>, hdvorak at cns.caltech.edu
(Hannah Dvorak-Carbone) wrote:

> It's being used for the introductory neuro class here at Caltech this year, 
> and it's definitely available here.  I haven't had a good look at it,
but they 
> used to use Kandel, Schwartz and Jessell for this same class, so it's
> pretty good.  The "look" of it struck me and some of my labmates as a little 
> odd, though.  It's very colourful, reminiscent of my high school textbooks.  
> The 1999 copyright date is kind of a scam, IMHO. There don't seem to be any 
> references more recent than 1998, which is not surprising given the lead time 
> required to produce a textbook.  But since when are copyright dates
> New car model years are one thing, but it seems silly to allow a book
> in '98 to be copyrighted '99...
> - Hannah Dvorak-Carbone
> In article <01bdfe68$8773a980$81a22090 at Magpie.york.ac.uk>, pjw106 at york.ac.uk 
> says...
> >
> >I have a copy on my bookshelf at the moment - don't know if that counts :)
> >Got it from Heffers in Cambridge, UK.  Is it available in UK and not
> >elsewhere at the moment?  Seems unlikely but you never know...
> >
> >Pam.
> >
> >Joseph V. Martin <jomartin at crab.rutgers.edu> wrote in article
> ><362FA2E2.C4F5B192 at crab.rutgers.edu>...
> >> I would advise getting a desk copy in hand before selecting it. 
> >> Since it was promised by this (current) semester, I had ordered
> >> it for my class and had to change at the last moment.  I have
> >> STILL not seen an actual desk copy, although the sample chapters
> >> look good.
> >> 
> >> Pam Willoughby wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Try fundamental neuroscience -  published by academic press, edited by
> >> > Zigmond, Bloom, Landis, Roberts and Squire.  Copyright 1999 so its bang
> >up
> >> > to date.  It doubles up as a very effective doorstop too... :)
> >> >
> >>

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net