Differential EEG

ken kpaulc at earthlink.net
Sat Mar 6 12:27:50 EST 2004


"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:gurf40t6qq2o1f6tgo51bl8bn8pi3hgcuj at 4ax.com...
> [...]
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 04:06:44 GMT, "kpaulc"
> <kpaulc at removeearthlink.net> wrote:
> [...]
> } "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
> } news:q5pc40d2nbkmmopth3r235rqt0hv6jmkbg at 4ax.com...
> } > On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:57:49 GMT, "kpaulc" <kpaulc at earthlink.net>
> } wrote:
> } [...]

> 3-D source reconstruction software
> typically does a fine job of locating
> subcortical sources. We get good
> agreement with fMRI localization
> when we do simultaneous recording.

Then, why have I seen no such 3-D
source reconstructions?

The easy answer is that I've not been
actively reading in Neuroscience, but
the hard answer is that folks doing the
3-D reconstruction are 'failing' to pop-
ularize their work ['failing' to get-it-out
to folks who pay for it].

If it's as you say [and I accept your
saying that it's so], there should be
as many EEG 3-D reconstructions in
popular accounts as there are MRI
images - because the 3-D EEG recon-
structions are flat-out =important=.

[If the above is taken as 'criticism', it
should be taken as =Constructive= 'crit-
icism.]

Tell me, please, are the 3-D reconstruct-
ions, as yet, able to 'follow' single large-
fiber action potentials? [That is, are they
able to cross-correlate energy-flow inter-
connectedness? Or do they 'reconstruct'
without regard to neuronal-continuity.

The last thing is the neural-topological stuff
that I've been discussing, and I can see
that, at least in-principle, it should be do-
able. [It's hard for me to discuss it, though,
because I invented all of the Maths I use,
as necessary [and it, therefore, doesn't have
one-to-one correspondence with any standard
Maths nomenclature - I don't know what a
"Laplacian" is [and don't care to know]]. I can
show the Maths I use, though, in a graphical
presentation.

[Please don't consider me to be 'disrespectful',
or 'untoward'. My personal experience just
'left me free' to not have to 'worry' about 'no-
menclature', so I don't. I do give myself over
to the work, Completely, though, working to-
ward Reification, which is all I care about, and
I do it in any way that I can. There are more
than enough others, who've 'walked' the standard
path, to take-care-of the demands of walking-
the-standard-path. I try to work independently
of such, in the Hope of being able to Contribute
in ways that're 'outlawed' by the demands of
walking-the-standard-path. I've not yet been
able to convince anyone of the Worth inherent
in my "looking-elsewhere", it seems.]

I mean no 'offense'.

I mean 'just'-the-opposite stuff.

Cheers, DynaSoar, ken [k. p. collins]






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list