Differential EEG

ken kpaulc at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 9 23:13:28 EST 2004


"NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dlr3c.15435$hG.245008 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > I've not been reading in the Neuroscience
> > stacks, but I've not seen a single Generalized
> > Report of efforts to use EEG to follow the
> > 'burning fuses' of action potentials.
>
> That's because an EEG doesn't allow you to track a single action
potential.

I misinterpreted what you said in your
prior post because I'd said that, if the
methods I've been discussing are used,
seeing large-fiber action potentials should
be flat-out doable.

> All it is a gross outcome of activity from millions of neurons.  What your
> seeing isn't really action potentials per se, but rather the summation of
> activity from a variety of different neurons.    I'm failing to see your
> point.

The 'differential' methods I discussed can
be used to 'see' large-fiber action potentials.

The summations are all 'ramped', which allows
large-fiber action potentials to be distinguished
within them - =iff= the 'differentials' ['ramps']
that I discussed are used. [These 'differentials'
are discernable be-cause, at each 'instant', each
electrode 'sees' =its= relative-activation 'picture'
of a dynamic. The 'differentials' occur both be-
cause signal propagation 'times' and signal-atten-
uation. So any two electrodes 'see' the 'same'
dynamic, but a distant one 'sees' it later and smal-
ler than does a close one. And so forth, with
other electrodes, and so forth, as the signal un-
folds.

With large-diameter axons, all of this procedes
in a 'burning-fuse' way that constitutes 'ramped'-
consistency that can be discerned within the other
activation that does not have commensurate
large-fiber [long-fiber] 'ramping'.

It's just a data-filtering problem that is completely-
defined in the 'ramps' [the 'differentials'].

I thought that, when you said you didn't see any-
thing new in what I'd discussed, that you were
saying that this large-fiber 'differential'-followning
was 'already being done'.

But, above, you said it isn't.

So, since it's flat-out doable, there's obviously
this benefit in the stuff I've discussed.

And this method can be greatly [and easily] re-
fined] to enable the 'seeing' of progressively-
smaller action-potentials.

And it can be used to 'range', at will, to focus
within 'the depths' of the neural Topology.

I really can see no end to what can be done
with it - and some Work, and some patience,
and some endurance.

You've 'rejected' without actually understanding
it - probably because you're doing the Maths-
preservation stuff that I discussed in my prior
post, instead of using Maths to allow you to
see-more.

> > If it's as you say, then you should contact
> > a good Science Writer [say, Natalie Angier,
> > William Broad, John Noble Wilford, Kenneth
> > Chaing, at The =New York Times= Science
> > desk], and get this stuff into the Popular Med-
> > ia. [The =NYT= also employs some pretty-Good
> > Graphical-depiction Talent.]
> >
> > It's too-important to sit in the stacks, so I en-
> > courage you to get it Communicated.
>
> I don't need to contact the press, this is all well
> known in the literature and in the community.

Obviously, what I'actually been discussing is
not "well known in the literature".

> I encourage you to start reading current papers
> published in the neurosciences.

For what?

To just pile-up more Newness that folks'll not
be able to understand? Or, if they understand
it, to ab-use it?

I've been working back in Physics for the last
two 'decades' - be-cause I've got a Good Phys-
ics Library - and be-cause I can't even afford
to drive to a Neuroscience Library [and, be-
cause I've still got 90% of the stuff that I did in
Neuroscience that's not yet been discussed,
and be-cause I can just See the functional
Neuroanatomy. So, as things stand, with re-
spect to the stuff I'm discussing, I don't have
to read anything else in Neuroscience. Note
well, I =want= to read in Neuroscience, but
how does one do such when one cannot afford
to go to the Neuroscience Library?]

> > Folks need to hook-up with accelerator-
> > detector Engineers. That's all.
> >
> > > Volume conduction and inverse problems
> > > will still present a problem in the
> > > localization approach you suggested.
> >
> > Only be-cause folks've not, yet, hooked-
> > up with accelerator-detector Engineers.
> >
>
> Well all your suggesting here is that technology
> needs to change, a point that I agree with you.
> I can't comment on your statement that "hooking
> up with accelerator-detector Engineers"  will be
> beneficial.

Most of what I've discussed can be done using
the methods I've discussed. The electrode-Engin-
eering stuff is with respect to 'seeing' into the depths
of the neural Topology. And the accelerator-detector
Engineers are the Best folks for the job of giving
EEG folks New electrodes.

> > If other scanning techniques can see into
> > the depths, EEG can, too, and it will, as
> > soon as folks hook-up with accelerator-
> > detector Engineers.
>
> I agree with you.  This is an engineering question.
> Obviously in the magical world of possibility
> anything can happen.

You're losing-me, Neil. There's no 'magic' in any-
thing that I've been discussing. It's all 'just' the
"nonlinearity of perspective" stuff that's been dis-
cussed in AoK, Ap6 all along, applied to EEG
data analysis.

> The issue is that this doesn't validate anything
> you have been previously saying.  If a complete
> paradigm shift and technological revolution is
> required in order for your theory to be acceptable
> then fine.  But basing such arguments on  "what
> if's" doens't make them verifiable, nor do they
> make them false.  They just remain as interesting
> ideas for arm chair thinking and the occassional pub
> discussion.

Are you Serious? :-]

I stand on what I've posted.

> I agree with you, if the techniques and approaches
> change then perhaps we can gain insight using your
> approach.  However, right now it meaningless.

:-]

> The same argument can be given to space travel.
> One day if we can develop "warp-speed" we can
> travel to distant. Sure.  Perhaps we will, however,
> in the here and the now the point is irrelevant.

[Babe] "Ruth made a big mistake when he gave up
pitching." [Tris Speaker]

> > I do not 'overlook' the fact that there're a hundred
> > billion neurons in-there.
> >
> > It's just that every one of them is directionally-
> > mapped within the neural Topology.
>
> Well you have presented these concepts numerous
> times; however, I still find them ambiguous.

It's the neural Topology - and it's what orders
everything that occurs within nervous systems.

If it's 'ambiguous', all you have to do is use AoK
as a guide while studying in a Good Neuroanatomy
Text.

> I don't agree that every single neuron will be mapped
> regarding one specific directional mapping within
> neurotopology.  The problem with this, at least in my
> opinion, is that theoretically the loss of a single unit (if i
> n an appropriate or critical location) can cause the
> potential break down in the organization and function-
> ality of the remaining aggregates.

Your "opinion" has zero correlation to anything that
I've discussed, or to the detailed Neuroanatomy.

Again, you need to study the detailed Neuroanatomy -
with your own eyes, instead of through the 'eyes' of
existing EEG methodologies.

> Furthermore, what will be mapped within the topology
> will be at any given moment will be influenced by the
> activity of all the aggregates within the brain space at
> that single moment in time.  I don't think the directionally
> mapping is fixated or static, but would rather be dynamic.
> (I may misunderstand what you are saying; however,
> this is what the data suggests and what my own work
> seems to verify).

The neural Topology is dynamic, within 'time'-correlated
intervals - from 'instantaneous', all the way up to the massive
plasticity that's observed in the "phantom limb" phenomenon.

But, during a 'typical' EEG 'interval', it's relatively static.
There's relatively-little trophic stuff happening in-there.

What is dynamic in the 'typical' EEG 'interval' is the
'momentary' "supersystem configuration" [AoK, Ap5,
which, as I've commented in a prior post with respect
to "stage II 'spindling'", is the stuff that got me started
discussing the "simultaneoys differential EEG" stuff that
I've been discussing - be-cause it's obvious to me that
the "stage II 'spindling'" is probably correlated to "super-
system configuration" dynamics that actually occur in
3-D - and, since I'd Love to see them in 3-D, I'm telling
folks how to go about seeing them in 3-D.]

"Supersystem configuration" via TD E/I-minimization is
what sets the 'momentary' interconnectedness [the mo-
mentary neural Topology], including cortical and sub-
cortical loop-circuits which are dynamically tuned.

But, during the 'typical' EEG 'interval'. these intercon-
nectedness variations don't occur via structural canges,
but via neural-activation dynamics.

Durint the 'typical' EEG 'interval', the neurons are rel-
atively structurally the 'same'.

The variations in the EEG to which you refer, therefore,
correlate to variations in neural activation.

I don's know what the 'time' resolution of a 'typical'
EEG setup is, but, unless exceeds the signal propagation-
rate within the tissue under observation, the neural-act-
ivation variations to which you refer are not a problem.
The Directionalities to which I referred can all be dis-
cerned using the SDEEG methods that I've discussed
[again, within the range of electrode resolution].

> > If I ever get a chance to work with actual data,
> > I Expect that what I'll find is that folks've been
> > 'ignoring' this neural-topological-mapping - be-
> > cause their approach is Conservative with re-
> > spect to the Maths that's been handed-down
> > since Berger. I Expect I'll find that folks've
> > been Preserving the Maths, rather than doing-
> > Neuroscience.
>
> Well I don't know what to say.  Until I see your own
> mathematical approach, I will remain skeptical.

You've 'seen' it without Seeing it. I described it
sufficiently.

> > For instance, it would be useful if electrodes
> > were embedded in 'patch'-arrays that were
> > addressible in the 'same' way that current
> > LCDs are addressed. This, alone [which is
> > 'immediately'-doable] would =greatly= enhance
> > resolution.
> >
> > Such 'patch-arrays' could be used in localized
> > EEG recordings - to look, in focussed ways, at
> > particular sub-dynamics, with each patch having
> > its own CPU so that analysis could occur in-paral-
> > lel, in real-'time'.
>
> I agree; however, the problems stated before still
> remain.

Nope. The 'problems' you've discussed do not exist.

It only gets-better if such LCD-like-addressed
electrode arrays are used.

>  There has been some interesting work by Nunez
> regarding the physics and mathematical approach
> regarding source localization from EEG dynamics.

I've discussed everything that's necessary. It's all
in the 'differentials'.

> > Then the patch-array-density could be gradually
> > increased to 'full'-coverage.
> >
> > I don't know what, if anything, it'd yield, but I'd
> > also like to investigate using electrodes that're
> > suspended at distances separating them from
> > the brain. I'd want to look for another usable
> > energy-gradient - another 'ramp' - another 'dif-
> > ferential'. Superficially, it'd be even more 'foggy',
> > but that's just-it - a relative-'fog' 'differential' is
> > Useful in sorting-out what's 'foggy', but less-
> > 'foggy'.

When I was writing the 'disappeared' msg, I was
going to discuss another type of electrode - one
that would, itself, move in periodic motion - like
"sacades" in the visual system, which, as is discus-
sed in AoK, Ap6, would =greatly= enhance SDEEG's
'differential' analysis [of course, requiring the 'over-
head' of keeping track of the relative motions of
the moving electrodes]. This's relatively-easy to
do, BTW, once a moving-electrode design is imp-
limented. [Fringe benefit: This moving-electrode
EEG would feed-back into vision Research, Usefully.]

> Interesting concept. The data has suggested that
> the time-varying magnetic fields generated by the
> brain that are most important in mediating processes
> involved with consciousness

Gees 'louise'! Where'd you get that? It's B. S.

If it were so, one couldn't walk across the ground
while being Conscious - Earth's 'magnetic' field
would completely overwhelm the tiny 'magnetic'
fields that occur in the brain.

> can most likely interact with exogeneous magnetic
> fields at a location that are a small distance extend-
> ing off the scalp.

My suspended-electrode surmise was only with
respect to creating another 'differential', as I dis-
cussed.

K. P. Collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list