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

Basic Neuron Questions

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Sun Apr 13 10:05:34 EST 2003


It's genuinely-hilarious. I just reread my prior post, and now
understand the "gallows humor" that Peter brought up [which is
connected to the 'gallows humor' that I posted at an only superficial
shared-verbal-symbol 'level' [verbally-coincidental, not
meaning-coincidental]].

I laughed out loud all the while I was rereading the prior post,
quoted below, after reading Peter's post.

It's 'hilarious'.

Can you see it?

I'm 'experimental subject' in the experimental design that I've
described :-]

Anyway, while rereading the post, between the laughs, I realized that
it'd be some pretty-fancy 'scanning' that'd 'scan' interacting
subjects within a richly-comples experimental design.

I didn't stop to think that what I can easily do in the ol' noggin'
lab might be Hard to do in a Lab-lab.

Trust me. The electrode recordings and the synchronized video
recordings are sufficient - maybe, to bolster the data collection,
with periodic scans, with their data carefully sequence-synchronized.

It will help if the video data is stick-line digitized [draw
body-position lines and effector lines frame-by-frame, and digitize
the 'video' data.

The "variation" that [I and] Didier addressed will 'fall out' as just
more TD E/I-minimization.

That is, the variation will be seen as being TD E/I-minimization
en-route to further TD E/I-minimization.

Cheers, K. P. Collins [still laughing]

"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:026ma.58008$ja4.3786072 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| METHOD proposal below.
|
| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| news:Qj3ma.26220$cO3.1906450 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | Hi Didier.
| |
| | "Didier A. Depireux" <didier at tango.isr.umd.edu> wrote in message
| | news:b79jlr$c5a$1 at grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
| | | r norman <rsnorman_ at _comcast.net> wrote:
| | | > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:44:25 +0000 (UTC), "Didier A.
Depireux"
| | | > <didier at rai.isr.umd.edu> wrote:
| | |
| | | > [...]
| | | > Certainly there are specific cases
| | | > where timing of nerve activity,
| | | > even to the sub-millisecond level, is critical.
| | |
| | | That is true, and typically it's periferal.
| | | For instance, fibers of the auditory nerve
| | | can code pure tones' phase up to about
| | | 2 kHz (more or less depending on who
| | | you read). This implies an accuracy in
| | | firing time in the 100 microsec range.
| | | By the time you get to cortex, though
| | | (which I thought was the original question),
| | | things are a lot more sluggish and noisy.
| | | Present the same stimulus 20 times and
| | | you will never get 20 times the same
| | | response, in most parts of cortex.
| |
| | The same thing never happens in the
| | [global] nervous system twice
| | because mocroscopic trophic
| | modifications occur as a result of the
| | activation that occurs within nervous
| | systems. Via ongoing convergence
| | upon TD E/I-minimization the global
| | system is =always= 'learning' - analyses
| | must converge upon rigor with respect
| | to such. When this is accomplished,
| | the cortical activation differentials that
| | you point out will become a [the?]
| | primary means of describing the
| | underpinning "micro-mods" - that is,
| | activation differentials will be
| | referred back to neural Topology
| | differentials [including the
| | "supersystem configuration" dynamics
| | that are discussed in AoK, Ap5].
|
| This's a 'hard' problem, but it's long seemed to me that everything
| necessary to =begin= making significant progress towards its
| resolution has been available.
|
| It does require substantial computing capacity, however, and, in
| addition, requires the development of non-destructive, but
| nevertheless, invasive experimental techniques.
|
| The research program entails the use of such non-destructive
| [electrode-implantation, etc.] techniques, and long-term use of
| scanning [PET, fMRI, 2-DG, etc.] in conjunction with =simultaneous=
| electrode-recording and synchronized video, audio, treadle, etc.,
| recording of behaviora; functioning. Synchronizization of all
| recording 'tracks' is of =paramount= importance.
|
| The other experimental-design consideration is to establish a
| controlled experimental environment [literally a self-contained,
| 'playing field' - the richer the better, and, of course, as
wired-up
| with sensors to the max practical degree] for the subjects to
| manifest behavior
|
| All interaction with the subject animals must be optimized with
| respect to prolonging the survival of the subjects in as 'normal' a
| way as is possible. With respect to such, it'd be nice to have the
| electrode data transmitted by small worn transmitters, which'd free
| the subjects from being 'tethered' by the recording data wires
| [caveat: can such transmitters, and their batteries, be constructed
| small enough to actually allow some degree of 'normalcy' in the
| subjects' behaviors?] Such 'telemetry' would, for instance, allow
| subjects to negotiate tub mazes, to burrow, bass under and through
| features of the experimental 'playing field", and,
most-importantly,
| =interact= with other subjects - all while their data streams are
| being recorded and archived.
|
| After assuring that the electrode implants are functional, and that
| all of the apparatus is properly synchronized, experimenters want
to
| =just= let the subjects manifest 'normal' behavior in interaction
| with the experimental environment.
|
| The goal is to 'just' record and archive the synchronized
data-trains
| that the experiment yields - so, the longer each 'trial' the
better.
|
| There are, therefore, three main 'phases' in this experimental
| approach.
|
| 1. Design of the 'playing-field' - as rich as possible - gathering
| the 'sensors' - as rich as possible - and developing methods to
| assure their synchronization. Multiple instances of each type of
| recording device must be incorporated, both to guard against device
| failure, and to allow for 'normal' service [cassette and battery
| replacement, etc.] A protocol must be developed to handle changing
| the batteries in the transmitters if subject telemetry is used -
| rigorously-standardised [well=practiced] procedures. This'll
minimize
| extraneous impacts of 'handling' within the data streams that are
| being recorded.
|
| 2. Implantation decisions and implementation.
|
| 3. This's where the 'Treasure' will be mined. In-depth data
analysis
| of each synchronized data trace with respect to every other data
| trace. Yhis can be done long-term, over and over again with respect
| to various questions, etc. The data are a 'world' of their own,
into
| which researchers can 'enter' enduringly.
|
| This method has the advantage that the data it produces is
archivable
| and sharable - just think of the worth inherent in such. Data from
| any trial could be made available to other researchers.
|
| Prediction: TD E/I-minimization traces extracted from the data will
| be observable, and will cross-correlate the variability to which
| Didier referred in his prior post, quoted above.
|
| The subjects won't even have to be 'sacrificed' because, as
| experience develops with this experimental approach, it will be
| realized that electrode-placement can be read directly from the
| synchronized data streams :-]
|
| NDT of NDT ["Non-Destructive-Testing' of "Neuroscientific Duality
| Theory" :-]
|
| Cheers, K. P. Collins
|
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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