bill at nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>kspencer at iti.org (Kevin Spencer) writes:
> > By "deep electroencephalograms", did they mean they were
> > recording intracranially? This sounds quite bizarre to me. And
> > regardless of whether they were recording from inside the scalp
> > or the surface, I think that there would be a lot of muscle and
> > movement artifacts in the EEG recordings.
>It is not uncommon for patients with intractable epilepsy to have
>intracranial electrodes implanted when surgical removal of part of the
>brain is being contemplated, in order to localize the source of the
>disturbance, or to understand what the disturbed tissue is doing. In
>many cases these electrodes are exploited for scientific studies,
>which can often be done without harming the patient. The two patients
>described in the Heath paper were both epileptic.
>As a rule, intracranial EEG recordings are much less disturbed by
>noise than scalp recordings. It's something like the difference
>between listening to a conversation through a thick wall and listening
>to it from inside the room.
> -- Bill
What I meant was that recording intracranially while subjects are doing
whatever they did to have orgasms seemed bizarre to me, not the intra-
cranial recordings themselves.