I'll defer to original respondent, but reference to inadequacy of
LTP/LTD models might refer to (1) inadequacy of LTP as model of "memory
process", and/or (2) to artificiality of LTP paradigm itself (extremely
high frequency stimulation)--researchers beginning to use "PBP" or
primed-burst facilitation as closer to natural phenomena, and more
sensitive to conditions influencing long-term potentiation.
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <36d3dad9.952545 at news.casema.net> koetje at boe.nl (AFJ van Aken)
>>On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:06:40 -0800, "Austin P. So (Hae-Jin)"
><haejin at netinfo.ubc.caX> wrote:
>>>I'd suggest these papers:
>>>>De Koninck P, Schulman H.Science 1998 Jan 9;279(5348):227-30
>>Dolmetsch RE, Xu K, Lewis RS. Nature 1998 Apr 30;392(6679):933-6
>>Bhalla and Iyengar Science 1999 Jan 15; 283 381-387.
>>>>It isn't so much the difference in concentration as it is the
>>frequency of [Ca2+] fluctuations...and we are also talking about
>>populations of proteins at various activation states...so it's really
>>game of tag.
>>>>Besides I wouldn't put too much faith in the LTP/LTD models, but
>>just my humble opinion...
>>And why is that?
>I've been reading about LTP processes in which no NMDA receptors are
>Would you suggest that LTP models are an overgeneralization?
>>AFJ van Aken