101010.pl is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
101010.pl czyli najstarszy polski serwer Mastodon. Posiadamy wpisy do 2048 znaków.

Server stats:

481
active users

#oldneuropapers

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Teixi<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://fediscience.org/@DrYohanJohn" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>DrYohanJohn</span></a></span> </p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/JohnBickle" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>JohnBickle</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/neurohistory" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neurohistory</span></a> lecture:</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/compneuro" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>compneuro</span></a> limits</p><p>A Hodgkin &amp; A Huxley<br>1952s<br>Papers quartet duo written<br>—with one B Katz trio</p><p>Pioneering voltage-clamp squid neural implant.</p><p>First action potentials recordings!</p><p>Last paper on how maths calculus derived from experiments datasets.</p><p>Thus predictions caveat:<br>Never link causal mechanisms.</p><p>ps: Q&amp;A critical feedback:<br>Skilled lecturer turns into scientific dialogues!</p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g85bgHul7Ns" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">youtube.com/watch?v=g85bgHul7N</span><span class="invisible">s</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/oldneuropapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>oldneuropapers</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/neurobuzz" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neurobuzz</span></a></p>
Jascha Achterberg<p><span class="h-card"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@LeonDLotter" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>LeonDLotter</span></a></span> The ML community started using <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/PaperThread" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PaperThread</span></a> - <span class="h-card"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>NicoleCRust</span></a></span> set up <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/oldneuropapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>oldneuropapers</span></a> to highlight fundamental neuro work and one could do <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/newneuropapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>newneuropapers</span></a> for new publications to keep it consistent. I feel it’s generally been a bit quite here over the holidays but I am sure the <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> community will start sharing their new work again more actively soon!</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>Coda:</p><p>We see even in this coarse reading, establishing the role of IT cortex in object recognition and processing was nearly a six-decade culmination of work by multiple researchers working on the anatomy, physiology, theory and behavior. </p><p>Large parts of what I have written is from Society for Neuroscience’s “The History of Neuroscience in Autobiography” of Charlie Gross: <br><a href="https://www.sfn.org/-/media/SfN/Documents/TheHistoryofNeuroscience/Volume-6/c4.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">sfn.org/-/media/SfN/Documents/</span><span class="invisible">TheHistoryofNeuroscience/Volume-6/c4.pdf</span></a></p><p>I highly recommend to students and neuroscientists alike to make use of this excellent resource that SfN has to offer:<br><a href="https://www.sfn.org/about/history-of-neuroscience/autobiographical-chapters" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">sfn.org/about/history-of-neuro</span><span class="invisible">science/autobiographical-chapters</span></a></p><p>10/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>Yasushi Miyashita and his group in Tokyo around the late 80s furthered the short-term pictorial memory in IT and how they relate to long term associational memory. </p><p>Justine Sergent at McGill in the early 90s showed the first evidence of a dedicated face processing region in the ventral stream, which Nancy Kanwisher later clearly established in the mid to late 90s for its domain specificity and calling it the Fusiform Face Area (FFA). Nancy also identified another region that was dedicated exclusively to places/scenes, Parahippocampal Place Area (PPA)</p><p>9/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>Mort Mishkin and the Gross gang during the same period showed IT cortex receives inputs from the striate cortices, thus establishing the ventral stream visual pathway. In the early 80s, a plethora of what were then hard to synthesize/reconcile studies of different brain areas were synthesized by Mort Mishkin and the great Leslie Ungerleider, into what we now know as the famous the dual visual (dorsal and ventral stream) pathways for visual recognition.<br>8/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>In the 1980s, much of the work on extra striate cortex, and IT was driven by Charlie's lab and his protégés, especially Bob Desimone, Tom Albright, and later Earl Miller, John Duncan. Their work further established IT neurons were selective to particular classes of objects, attention related effects, as well as suppression of activity by repeated presentation (including a sort of short-term memory). </p><p>7/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>Charlie Gross then moved to Princeton in the 1970s. Bob Desimone (my mentor), and Tom Albright joined as some of his first grad students. The inimitable Eric Schwartz joined them as a postdoc for a couple years. The Gross lab in the mid to late 1970s established systematically that IT neurons responded to complex visual inputs, their overall shapes, and thus objects rather than to individual features like orientations, or color, or simple curvature. This led to the funny and famous story of the "toilet-brush" neurons. The toilet-brush neurons also responded to “hand” cells that Charlie had earlier identified, so the “fingers” in the two were the commonality. This led them to come up with the idea of Fourier shape descriptors to suggest how the brain builds the "it" from the "bits" (a forerunner to all the modern linear combination of activities to give an output response, including the currently in-vogue deepnet models). </p><p>6/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>In the middle to late 1960s, then at MIT, George Gerstein, and a dashing young Charlie Gross (my intellectual grandfather), inspired by single neuron recordings of Hubel and Wiesel, and the work of Pribram and Mishkin, stuck microelectrodes in IT cortex of awake monkeys and showed that they responded to visual stimuli. This was the first demonstration of neurons being active for visual inputs far away from the striate areas!</p><p>Later Peter Schiller joined them in the experiments. They also showed these neurons were involved in attentional mechanisms. The input stimuli, however were still rudimentary and not resembling anything “object” like: diffused light, orientation, movement etc., And then by happenstance, Charlie found "face" and "hand" cells (much like how Hubel and Wiesel found orientation cells by complete accident, slipping of the image on the projector)!</p><p>5/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>The great Karl Pribram (at Stanford) and Mortimer Mishkin (at NIH) towards the end of the 1960s performed focalized lesions in macaques in only the IT cortex (instead of the entire MTL as reported in Klüver-Bucy). In their experiments, they observed that such lesions only led to deficits in visual processing, and learning! </p><p>4/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>While neurosurgeons were working with patients and characterizing the syndrome, there was a short interregnum in the world of visual neuroscience, thanks to the groundbreaking work (dare I say, paradigmatic leap) from David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel with their experiments in the striate cortex (V1, V2) and LGN. </p><p>3/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>Heinrich Klüver in the 1930s wanted to study the effects of mescaline(!) in macaques after bilateral temporal lobectomy. Paul Bucy, a neurosurgeon performed the surgery and experiments. However, Bucy did not observe any of the hypothesized effects of mescaline and instead discovered that the animal had significant impairment/abnormalities. These broadly included: subdued/docile emotional expressions, adverse sexual behavior, dietary changes, utilization behaviors, increased tendency to use the mouth for exploring the world, and finally, but most importantly for our story, difficulties in visual learning and agnosia!</p><p>In the 1950s, neuroscientists and surgeons documented and confirmed similar behaviors in humans who had temporal lobectomy. Today, we know this as the famous/eponymous Klüver-Bucy syndrome due to bilateral lesions (or tumors) of the medial temporal lobe (MTL).</p><p>2/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/HistoryOfIdeas" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfIdeas</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ITcortex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ITcortex</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ObjectRecognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ObjectRecognition</span></a> </p><p>Everyone in neuroscience has heard of the famous story of patient HM. The bilateral medial temporal lobectomy performed on him (in 1953) resecting most of his hippocampi to cure epilepsy, but led to him having anterograde amnesia. This observation directly implicated hippocampus as necessary for memory formation, thus kickstarting an entire field. </p><p>How did we arrive at the inferotemporal cortex (IT) as the region involved in object processing/recognition? The history of IT is even longer, not as straightforward as that of hippocampus, and in fact was a multi-decade culmination. </p><p>Here’s a shortish compressed history of how IT became the center of visual object recognition in ten toots! </p><p>1/10</p>
Karthik Srinivasan<a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/activesensing" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>activesensing</span></a> Microsaccades (outside of a coterie of researchers) are most often treated (and taken to be facts) by the larger neuroscience community as either "involuntary", "random", "fixational artifact", all to the end that they serve no functional purpose. While termed micro-saccades, the typical view is that they are distinct from and nothing like regular eye movements (saccades). However as far back as 1965, Zuber, Stark and Cook, publishing in Science suggest that they are indeed "micro" saccades: <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5855207/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/585520</span><span class="invisible">7/</span></a> They write in the abstract: "... these movements are produced by a common physiological system, or the characteristics of the movements are determined by a single dynamically limiting element." which later, researchers like Hafed, Krauzlis, Martinez-Conde and others have experimentally shown have their neural origins in the superior colliculus or the frontal eye fields much like saccades. What purpose does such a delineation then serve? And even worse, treat them as artifacts instead of as important behavioral signatures/markers? After all, isn't one of the brain's functions to ensure that the body/organism moves and behaves in the environment?
Yohan John 🤖🧠<p>"Helmholtz combined aspects of the judgmental and associative accounts by proposing that size perception results from unconscious inference while giving an associative analysis of the process of inference itself".</p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Psychology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Psychology</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a></p>
Karthik Srinivasan<p><span class="h-card"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@PessoaBrain" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>PessoaBrain</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>NicoleCRust</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://fediscience.org/@DrYohanJohn" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>DrYohanJohn</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://mastodon.online/@macshine" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>macshine</span></a></span> </p><p>How far back? Really far back.</p><p>Here's one fundamental example. </p><p>Did Hebb come up with what we now call Hebb's Law?</p><p>Hebb himself said otherwise. </p><p>Find below a letter from Hebb (1977) acknowledging Eugenio Tanzi of having postulated it earlier in 1893!!</p><p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/history" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>history</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a></p>
Albert Cardona<p><span class="h-card"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@PessoaBrain" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>PessoaBrain</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>NicoleCRust</span></a></span> 1980’s is pre-PCR, pre-GCaMP, pre-lots of techniques: so “old”. Yet with brilliant work, like Srinivasan, Laughlin &amp; Dubs 1982 “Predictive coding: a fresh view of inhibition in the retina” <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.1982.0085" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">royalsocietypublishing.org/doi</span><span class="invisible">/abs/10.1098/rspb.1982.0085</span></a><br><a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a></p>
Luiz Pessoa<p>Question: <span class="h-card"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>NicoleCRust</span></a></span> started <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> which is awesome. But what counts as old?? I used to like posting about old/classic papers in the other place, I'm a huge fan (of old papers, to be clear).</p><p>Okay, I know I'm old so probably this explains my question, is 1980s old?? 😅</p><p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a></p>
Nicole Rust<p>Inspired in part by <span class="h-card"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@LeslieKay" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>LeslieKay</span></a></span> &amp; the <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> initiative, I read Tolman's 1948 paper "Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men":<br><a href="https://personal.utdallas.edu/~tres/spatial/tolman.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">personal.utdallas.edu/~tres/sp</span><span class="invisible">atial/tolman.pdf</span></a></p><p>Not sure how I got this far without reading it, and I recommend it to anyone who also hasn't. We simply do not see this type of paper anymore. I wonder: Are we better worse off for it?</p><p>At it's core, it contains the thing we all still aspire to: a clear illustration of competing ideas about how the brain/mind works, compared with the evidence. But it also contains two things we don't do anymore.</p><p>First, it's peppered with saucy: "Most of the rat investigations, which I shall report, were carried out in the Berkeley laboratory. But I shall also include, occasionally, accounts of the behavior of non-Berkeley rats who obviously have misspent their lives in out-of- State laboratories." <br>While this is amusing, it's probably best that we've left this snark behind?</p><p>Second, the discussion extends ideas around cognitive maps, tested with rats running through mazes, into thoughts around social justice: "I am not myself a clinician or a social psychologist. What I am going to say must be considered, therefore, simply as in the nature of a rat psychologist's ratiocinations offered free ... the expression of these their displaced hates ranges all the way from discrimination against minorities to world conflagrations ...What in the name of Heaven and Psychology can we do about it? My only answer is to preach again the virtues of reason—of, that is, broad cognitive maps." <br>This might not belong in scientific papers per se. But I wonder is something has been left behind here in the narrowing of the field?</p><p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>neuroscience</span></a><br><span class="h-card"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/cogneurophys" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>cogneurophys</span></a></span> <br><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a></p>
Yohan John 🤖🧠<p>Love <span class="h-card"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>NicoleCRust</span></a></span> 's idea of an <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a> hashtag.</p><p>Some years ago I wanted to look into the history of how the amygdala came to be associated with emotion. I traced the story to Brown &amp; Shafer 1888, which may have been the first study of temporal lobe lesions.</p><p>The "peculiar idiotic condition" (a vintage technical phrase!) of the monkey is a precursor of Klüver-Bucy syndrome.</p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Neuroscience</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/HistoryofScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryofScience</span></a></p>
Nicole Rust<p><span class="h-card"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@MatteoCarandini" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>MatteoCarandini</span></a></span> I love this dive into old papers w/ highlights. Thank you!</p><p>Nudging this into a trend ... I know we all feel a bit icky about hashtags, but we need them to make here work. I suggest <br><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/OldNeuroPapers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OldNeuroPapers</span></a>. (I'm following it now).</p><p>So a call to all with a special nudge to trainees who are interested in reading and posting (Barlow, Hodgkin/Huxley, McCulloch/Pitts, Goldman-Rakic, ...).</p>