Not to denigrate your gracious acceptance nor to denigrate brain damage
studies (much of my own research has been in this area, and it is
central to my day-to-day clinical work), BUT: please include also the
many, many studies of brain/behavior relationships in normal, undamaged
brains--using PET, SPECT, fMRI (functional MRI), MEG
(magnetorencephalograms), and even good old EEG, evoked potentials,
etc., etc.
And even some strictly behavioral/cognitive studies which compliment
physiological studies (e.g. using FIST, a test designed to measure
separate aspects of visual memory, based on physiological/anatomical
data identifying dorsal and ventral "visual streams" from primary
visual cortex to the hippocampus--Dr. Elena Kumkova and I introduced it
at the Seattle meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society,
2-3 yrs ago).
F. LeFever
In <359a427b.2520080 at news.enteract.com> jer at enteract.com (J E) writes:
>>On 1 Jul 1998 03:05:24 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
>wrote:
>>Well, not "period"; perhaps "semicolon"? Followed by a reference to
>>behavioral and cognitive aspects? Taking the example of the Society
>>for Neuroscience: while more molecular (cellular, etc.) studies may
>>dominate papers presented at its annual meetings, there is a small
but
>>significant group of papers which include behavioral dependent and/or
>>independent variables (my own presentions are in this
>>category)--although of course based on experimental manipulations,
>>objective measurements, etc., often (usually?) involving at least
some
>>aspect of the techniques you refer to.
>>Oh Yes! Didn't mean to be exclusionist, by any means. Behavioral
>studies of brain damage and the like rank at the top as well. ;-)
>>Jason
