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
undergrad

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
material.


Just my 2c worth,
Good luck
Stephan
----
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
probably 
> 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
post-dated? 
> New car model years are one thing, but it seems silly to allow a book
published 
> 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