"Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in
message news:b5l7rd$2mb$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
| John H. <johnh at faraway.xxx> wrote:
| > [...]
| I would be very surprised if these articles do not also list the
| previous relevant literature in the matter. I would be very
| about any pre-1990 literature. It is bound to be quite inexact.
It's why I long to rewrite AoK.
Back when I put NDT together, I had to work mainly with single unit
recording studies, cross-correlateing across as many examles as I
could find, to build and understanding of the 3-D neural
The necessity, inherent, had its advantages, though. It required me
to 'juggle' the results of dozens of experimental results at a time.
Read them, reread them - over and over again - until I could hold
everything in "mind's eye" so that I could, then, see the
cross-correlations. Each night, I'd read from when I got home from
work until after midnight. Then, usually during the Johnny Carson
show, I'd visualize the stuff I'd been reading. After years of this,
I could lay on my back, and 'project the Neuroanatomy on the slanty
ceiling of the garret in which I lived - I literally 'watched' the
neural dynamics happening up there on the ceiling.
Having to work in this 'juggling' way had the serendipitous effect of
'burning-in' the experimental results rather strongly.
I'm anxious to see if this'll still happen with contemporaneous
literature, in which the need for reading dozens of papers to see how
single neurons co-operate isn't(?) necessary.
'Course, I'm 'old' now, so maybe I'll just get the null result :-]
Cheers, Dag, ken