I appreciate your prompt response, but some of your comments left me
somewhat baffled:
>There is no such thing as a conclusive study. Any result has numerous
>possible explanations, though they may differ considerably in apparent
>likelihood. You are asking for more than science can provide.
I am well aware of sciences limitations, and, strictly speaking,
nothing can be "conclusive", but you can aquire a significant enough
body of evidence, that the term "conclusive" is often used. This was
my question, how "conclusive" is our knowledge of this area? Is this a
heavily researched and well verified phenomena?
>
> > b) Demonstrated other versions/forms of LTP which have a
> > sufficient duration to account for LTM?
>>Gary Lynch claims that LTP in the CA1 region of the hippocampus
>persists indefinitely, though some are skeptical. In addition, there
>is an interesting form of plasticity in the neocortex, called
>"kindling", that appears to persist for years; but as yet there is
>little evidence to connect it with LTM. (It has mostly been studied
>in connection with epilepsy.) I think it is fair to say that the
>physiological basis of LTM is not yet understood.
That is exactly what our text suggests, I was hoping that perhaps more
had been learned in this area in the last two years.
>> > c) provided confirmation for the memory indexing view point of
> > hippocampal involvement in memory?
>>This is a pretty indefinite question, but I'm sure the answer is that
>there is nothing that would convince you.
I don't understand the appearent hostility of this comment : "I am sure
that there is nothing that would convince you.." I am merely asking a
question, and BTW I tend to favor, from my limited perspective, the
indexing theory and was actually hoping for some additional
confirmation.
