[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 72 KB, 1238x719, T1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2221790 No.2221790 [Reply] [Original]

<span class="math">{\bf Warning.~May~contain~actual~science}[/spoiler]

If you'll indulge me I'd like to start a debate about contemporary neuroscience; specifically the way the majority of research is set up.

From what I've experienced the vast majority of research relies on grouping behavioral phenomena based on a semantic description of the behavior. These phenomena can be quantifiable, but their description remains semantic in nature nonetheless. From quantifications tasks can be designed that are used to make inferences about brain areas and systems that mediated the behavior.

It is my opinion this approach is of somewhat limited value to furthering our understanding of what <span class="math">causes[/spoiler] behavior. The semantic nature of the description of behavior leads to grouping of phenomena in a way that is not necessarily reflective of the ultimate cause of behavior. I think it would be more useful to change the direction of inference; define behavioral phenomena in relation to what neural systems mediate them.

Ultimately it all boils down to what we want to understand. The brain or behavior. So: What do you think?

>> No.2221800
File: 311 KB, 800x751, 1270780112850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2221800

Here is a nice image for you to enjoy while I bump my thread.

>> No.2221809

sage because this isn't /sci/

also this is now a naked women thread

>> No.2221813
File: 72 KB, 592x600, 1268324064562.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2221813

>> No.2221814

>>2221809
Excuse me? You seem to be lost.

>> No.2221827

Come on... there must be other neuro/sci/entists out there? Right guys? Right..?

>> No.2221833

>>2221827
Nope, sorry, /sci/ is a trolling board. Everyone here is either a dropout or a failing undergrad.

>> No.2221834

/sci/ - no science allowed

>> No.2221837

>>2221833
>Everyone here is either a dropout or a failing undergrad.
I refuse to believe that. I can't be the only scientist here.

>> No.2221853
File: 41 KB, 363x480, 1274388613602.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2221853

I should have left the warning out shouldn't I...

>> No.2221860

>the vast majority of research relies on grouping behavioral phenomena based on a semantic description of the behavior

This isn't true. This false assumption is gumming up the rest of your understanding. Behavioral case studies of people with brain damage is one powerful way of analyzing the brain, but you take the term behavior too far. Once you start looking at patients with trauma closer to first level sensory areas in the cortex, you are really not analyzing behavior but cognition. And cognition has no CAUSE, it is just what the brain does. There is no line between the two, just a gradient as the sensory information propagates up the hierarchy.

Behavior only comes into play when you have damage to cortical association areas, or some more basic brain structure.

>> No.2221861

>>2221790
> Warning May contain actual science

Wrong board.

>> No.2221881

>>2221860
Finally.

>This isn't true.
It is though. Lesion studies, especially in humans are rare and methodologically difficult to make airtight.

Granted, perhaps I should have replaced behavior with cognition, but still, how would you measure cognition if not by behavior? Though it might not cause it in the strictest of interpretations of the term, I would still say the brain mediates cognition.

>> No.2221883

>what we want to understand. The brain or behavior

I'd assert that the investigation of the brain is a means to the end of understanding behaviour in the context of the categorical semantic labels we use.

You speak about understanding what causes behaviour, but I don't see the relevance of merely determining neural correlates. It's not that much of a surprise that, say, the decision to fly a kite happens in the brain - it's unlikely to happen in the smooth muscle that's in your heart.

How would reversing the direction of inference assist? What is knowledge of where/how brain activation is associated with some behaviour =good for=?

>> No.2221886

What is your undergraduate degree in OP?

I'm also interested in pursuing a career in Neuroscience.

>> No.2221922

>>2221881
Lesion studies are common on apes.

Anyway, cognition and behavior are not interchangeable phrases and I was not suggesting that you made a semantic error. I was suggesting that your view of how it should be done is behavior centric, while in reality behavior is only one possible product of cognition.

And fMRI and PET scans and a host of other things measure cognition without behavior.

Consider this, if you are still not convinced. Can you exist as a conscious being without creating any sort of behavior? If so, then focusing your research around behavior is going to lead you down a blind alley. The only way to understand the brain (and subsequently behavior) is to understand how we understand.

>> No.2221923

>>2221883
>You speak about understanding what causes behaviour, but I don't see the relevance of merely determining neural correlates.
My point is that the derectionality of inference matters specifically for the causal part of the inference. Performing a task in an MRI scanner and measuring BOLD signal for instance will only yield evidence which is correlational in nature. In contrast if we were to start out with defining neural systems and investigate to what extent they contribute to different forms of behavior (or cognition) we can make causal inferences. The advent of techniques such as TMS or direct current stimulation can contribute to this and I foresee publications in these types of research skyrocket over the next few decades.

>>2221886
Neuroscience for my bachelors and cognitive neuroscience for my masters.

>> No.2221937

>>2221923

Unfortunately...the school I am about to attend doesn't have a neuroscience program..

Would a undergrad degree in Biology with a focus on Physiology/Cell Biology do justice for future graduate work?

>> No.2221943

>>2221922
>Lesion studies are common on apes.
Yes, but they must be validated in humans.

>And fMRI and PET scans and a host of other things measure cognition without behavior.
They measure brain and vascular physiology, not cognition directly. We can decode what a person is seeing by investigating the BOLD signal in V1 for instance, but we cannot know what that person is perceiving. You need a behavioral measure to correlate with the signal for this. Could you describe to me an experiment that uses no behavioral task yet assesses cognition?

>> No.2221944

>>2221937
That will do just fine. You could also study psychology with a focus on biology. It depends on what type of research you would be most interested in.

>> No.2221948

>>2221944

Cognitive Neuroscience has piqued my interest...but I'd rather wait until I get more knowledgeable in the field before I make anything concrete.

>> No.2221958

>>2221948
A degree in biology would be a bit more versatile if you decide against cognitive neuroscience.

>> No.2221964

>>2221943
You are just being willfully stubborn. I am honestly starting to question either your credentials or your understanding. I do not mean this as a personal attack, you are simply entrenching in a very weird place...

You don't think if we understood the brain of an ape we could then understand the brain of a human?

As for your challenge, I could answer it one hundred times over, but I will go with the example from the lab I'm working at. We are looking at MT and MST areas in the cortex of apes, showing them stimulus such as objects increasing and decreasing in size, moving across the visual field, etc... We are looking at the firing patterns in these areas, we don't ask the apes what they are thinking or feeling, and we don't use any behavioral observation to tell either.

>> No.2222006

>>2221964
>You don't think if we understood the brain of an ape we could then understand the brain of a human?
Obviously understanding the brain of an ape can greatly aid us in our understanding of the human brain, but it would be naive to say every single finding is generalizable to humans. Think about lesioning the extrastriate cortex of a chimp for instance. This results in a different symptoms in humans, and that's a relatively similar neural structure. I personally am interested in directional control of the medial frontal cortex over lower visual areas. We use complex behavioral tasks that cannot be used in animals because they require planning etc. Monkeys simply will not learn this task.

>We are looking at the firing patterns in these areas, we don't ask the apes what they are thinking or feeling, and we don't use any behavioral observation to tell either.
What firring patterns specifically, and how do you use these to make inferences about cognition? I can see how you could investigate structural and functional neural organization in this way, but how would you even do this for more complex brain areas that don't have such a neat organization as MT? What about the rostral cingulate zone for instance? Do monkeys even have a homologue area?

>> No.2222033

>>2221964
I would also like to mention it is nice to see another neuroscientist on here, and I appreciate your contribution to this thread.

>> No.2222043

How the fuck did you use bold font?

>> No.2222044

>>2222043
I am, in fact, a wizard.

>> No.2222045

>>2222043
> Double-click equations to view the source.

>> No.2222052

>>2222045
Further explain.

>> No.2222053

>>2222045

>> No.2222055

>>2222006
please don't tell me I typed this for nothing?

>> No.2222057

>>2222052
>>2222053
Please continue this in another thread (or google how to use LaTeX)

>> No.2222058

I agree with your OP wholeheartedly. I've been skeptical about behavioral approaches to the brain's function. Its tough to draw causal inference form a whole lot of correlational data, as one would get from a slew of fMRI studies, but as you are a student of neuroscience I needn't remind you that inferences of causation CAN come from a slew of correlational data (th brain does it every day!).

fMRI is a very contemporary approach to studying the brain and behavior, but it's not the only one; I think that cognitive neuroscience is a more valid psychology in that it approaches the brain from a systems-behavioral end, but its limited in that an fMRI scanner can never tell you about the function of individual neural circuits. Neuroscience is eclectic. There are other, more quantitative and equally contemporary theories of the brain out there derived from years and years of electrophysiological and biochemical research, such as all of those concerned with Hebb's rule.

>> No.2222075

>>2222058
>I agree with your OP wholeheartedly.
Glad to hear that :)

>but as you are a student of neuroscience
Actually, I get payed to do it nowadays.

>I think that cognitive neuroscience is a more valid psychology in that it approaches the brain from a systems-behavioral end, but its limited in that an fMRI scanner can never tell you about the function of individual neural circuits. Neuroscience is eclectic. There are other, more quantitative and equally contemporary theories of the brain out there derived from years and years of electrophysiological and biochemical research, such as all of those concerned with Hebb's rule.
I know, but (as you stated) a lot of cogntive neuroscience is done with other techniques besides MRI. EEG measures brain activity more directly, and a lot of what we know from electrophysiological research in animals has been validated with it. A part of my research centers around the communication through coherence hypothesis for instance.

>> No.2222077

>>2222058
This is likely the most disorganized post I've ever typed out. Sorry.

>> No.2222086

>>2222077
No worries, it was better organized that most posts on this board.

>> No.2222115

>>2222075
Do you think that behavioral approaches to the brain's function are worthwhile at all? I think you're spot on when you say that our definitions of behavior limit our understanding of the brain, as the brain's interpretation of behavior and the popular/english interpretation of behavior probably do not match, but how do you think our experimental design would change if we were to infer from the brain rather than from behavior?

For example, what do you think an fMRI task would look like, and what would it try to predict?

>> No.2222117
File: 14 KB, 500x350, 1285778713030.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2222117

>> No.2222124

{\bf Warning.~May~contain~actual~science}
wat

>> No.2222143

nigger how do i bold?

>> No.2222145

>>2222115
I think behavior to brain induction is still useful, however it should be just the starting point of research, an mainly serve as a way of generating hypotheses.

>For example, what do you think an fMRI task would look like, and what would it try to predict?
I think fMRI should be used in concordance with techniques such as TMS more often. Furthermore we could start out with predefined group differences in structural MRI measures such as VBM values and investigate to what extent this influences a range of behaviors and cognition. In addition we could make headway in redefining behavioral phenomena such as inhibition (as used in psychology) according to which neural systems mediate them. This example is a particularly ambiguous term; for instance it encompasses phenomena such as suppressing saccades to undesirable social responses.

>> No.2222150

What The Fuck men?

>> No.2222152

>Warning. May contain actual science

>> No.2222155

bumping for self interest

>> No.2222160

>>2222155
The answer is already in the thread... Google LaTeX and start testing in your own thread.

>> No.2222166

I would say the brain.

>> No.2222175

I don't think you understand what semantic means.

>> No.2222177

We do not have the required technology to fully identify the systems that cause behavior. Once we have extremely high resolution MRI, or equivalent imaging technology, neuroscience will be able to pin-point what processes occur for specific behavior.

>> No.2222179

>>2222166
Would you care to explain why?

>> No.2222180

approaching and filling with spam

>> No.2222185

>>2222177
Agreed, we are as of yet somewhat constrained by technology. However, my point is more one of principle.

>> No.2222206
File: 90 KB, 490x366, what question.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2222206

>>2222117
>>2222117

>> No.2222235

derp

>> No.2222254 [DELETED] 

OK, I'm off. Thanks for anyone contributing.

>> No.2222257 [DELETED] 

>>2222254
>Thanks for
Thanks to*

>> No.2224273

Back to page one nigger

>> No.2224285
File: 20 KB, 441x350, 2.7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2224285

>> No.2224299

Fuck man, I never get used to these $10 words. 3 years as a researcher (in an unrelated field, but that's not the point) and I still have to reread shit.

>> No.2224310

>>2224299
Actually I have the same problem. I'm not a native english speaker, so writing comlicated stuff goes OK for me, but it always ends up as something horrible to read for other people. Sorry about that.

>> No.2224321

>>2224310
It's not you man. I just have a slight processing problem that I can usually cope with.

>> No.2224338

>>2224321
dyslexia?

>> No.2224933

ima bumpin mah thread

>> No.2224954
File: 21 KB, 611x454, 1278431189575.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2224954

>> No.2224975
File: 113 KB, 974x727, DTI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2224975

>> No.2224987

a real problem OP.

the brain seems to learn stimulus/response patterns by remembering and refining previous patterns.

because of this both the brain and behaviors it initiates are shaped to some extent by past locations and experiences unique to that brain.

However there are a limited number of appropriate, beneficial responses to any given stimulus, so it is reasonable to assume that any set of brains working "properly" will find a number of different paths to much the same response every time.

It would seem that the brain is a uniquely shaped organ that does the same old things. I'm not sure that studying the individual brain is useful, we may need to step back and see how brains work in general... overlooking the details for the moment.

behavior is necessary to understand the brain so far though, because we have no other measure that ties brain activity to physiological reaction. Ignoring behavior and concentrating on cellular activity is a bit like trying to understand oceans by looking at water drops.

>> No.2225008

>>2224987
I'm not arguing for casting aside behavior altogether, I'm simply saying the way we group behavioral phenomena is off. We know the brain does not operate in a manner similar to the grouping of phenomena as used today. We can correlate behavior with brain activity, sure, but this does not constitute a complete picture.

I'm not saying we should study only on an individual basis, we can define group similarities and differences in brain structure just the same.