DG Dispatch - AAN: Differences In Brain Size (FOLLOW-UP)

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Sun Aug 1 13:12:44 EST 1999


Ken already clued me in, I tried it, and it worked (had an upgrade but hadn't used it).

John, I look forward to your continuing explorations and attempts to put it all together.  I can appreciate (share) some of your undisciplined looking in all directions (and in fits and starts).  This has its advantages and disadvantages.  Those at the extreme at looking at everything explore side-trails others ignore and have the potential for creative syntheses, but never achieve tthem.   Those at the extreme of looking exhaustively at details of one narrow area can produce very sound data and analyses but may miss something relevant just across the aisle on the other fellow's desk.

Personally, I have found preparing abstracts to submit for to support my proposal to present a paper at a scientific meeting to be a very good discipline: especially for the International Neuropsychological Society, which asks for a Short abstract for publication and a Long abstract for blind review by 3 judges (2 of the 3 have to agree it is worth presenting).

Given the SPACE constraint, and given the TIME constraint (there is a deadline for submission), I cannot go on obsessively, but must focus on what I am able to say at THIS point in my work.

The two pages INS allows for the Long abstract is JUST RIGHT for me, in most cases; I have to do some careful writing and editing to keep it within limits, but this helps me focus on what is essential. 

  Even with Society for Neuroscience or Academy of Neurology, which require only the Short (published)) abstract, this is a valuable exercise, and guides me in what I need to think through, organize, and express in tthe final presentation (I usually prefer Poster Session).

If I present a series of papers summarizing different parts or successive steps in exploration of basically the same problem, I do not have a huge, moving and shifting mass of stuff (data, ideas, etc.) which defies efforts to put in publishable form: I have some oranized "chunks" of the whole, with some of the necessary language and the necessary citations ready for me to assemble into a commprehensible whole (almost just "cut and paste").  This is especially important for my current rather ambitious project of tying to develop an explanation for chronic symptoms of mild head trauma in neuroimmune terms.

F. Frank LeFever,Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group



In article <933497988.516258 at server.australia.net.au>,
	"John" <johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> wrote:
>
>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <7o0i5d$hrr at dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>>Well, thanks to John for so many interesting references.  My own
>>preference would be for joournal citattioons rather than web sites,
>>especially with very long URLs!)--for example, would be easier for me
>>to get Lancet off the shelf than even to go online (much less type in
>>the URL!).  I'm thinking aboutt the one abput mirror therapy in stroke
>>(sounds like Ramachandran).
>>
>
>
>You may want to update your reader\browser, you should be able to copy the
>long links and then paste straight into address line. The links are long
>because I've been digging around archives, partly for my ever wandering
>interest (there's an attention problem for me) but also keeping in mind
>recent threads and interests. Unfortunately friends have dragged me back
>into the big ol' world so the links won't keep coming except once or twice a
>week. I've only been here a year and prior to that read popular level texts
>on the stuff. My experience here has transformed my thinking in too many
>ways to count at present, I have a lot of thinking still ahead forever at a
>guess. So thanks to everybody because this has been the only time I ever had
>the opportunity to enter into discussions about all this; and I can assure
>you that TRYING to learn this stuff in silence is a very frustrating
>experience at times.
>
>I'll try to give journal references, not that I read them, but understand
>their value. A number of these links had no such refs, there's seem to be
>this creeping habit of press releases and teases, sometimes raising the
>ambiguity index too high for science but sufficient for art. Novels are made
>of the stuff.
>
>What intrigues me about this finding re ADD is the specificity of the
>deficit, the paper probably states whether the changed density is consistent
>throughout the region, I'm thinking of depth here, where are the cells
>lacking exactly: this may suggest an etiological clue. Now, I have a vague
>ref about ADD, dorsolateral, orbitofrontal (differentiated functions
>within), and their interactions\distinctions.
>
>
>John
>Remove XXXX in reply address
>
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list