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
I laughed out loud all the while I was rereading the prior post,
quoted below, after reading Peter's post.
Can you see it?
I'm 'experimental subject' in the experimental design that I've
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.
| | | > <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
| 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,
| =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
| =just= let the subjects manifest 'normal' behavior in interaction
| with the experimental environment.
|| The goal is to 'just' record and archive the synchronized
| that the experiment yields - so, the longer each 'trial' the
|| There are, therefore, three main 'phases' in this experimental
|| 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
| 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
| 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,
| which researchers can 'enter' enduringly.
|| This method has the advantage that the data it produces is
| 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