i stand on what i've posted... everything's discussed, and all the necessary
refs. cited, in AoK.
K. P. Collins
flefever wrote in message <7n8qps$s7i at dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <uNksupB1#GA.450 at cpmsnbbsa02> "Ken Collins" <KPaulC at email.msn.com>
>writes:
>>- - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - -
>>>in a way that i know of, he's correct. "memory" deficits are often
>>correlated with the sensory/motor sites of lesions. one case i recall
>is of
>>a fellow who couldn't recall the verbal symbol "wrench"... there was
>>cortical damage in the motor-hand "area". the idea is that he couldn't
>form
>>the memory of the verbal symbol for the hand tool be-cause the neural
>>activation "state" that "normally" "addressed" the "memory" was
>disrupted by
>>there being a "hole" in it... the "meaning" was clouded beyond
>recovery
>>be-cause the appropriately-correlated activation could not occur in
>>hand-motor cortex, which would "normally" be dominant when a "wrench"
>was
>>being used. yet, when tested on other aspects of the "same memory",
>the
>>fellow was successful.
>>>>this is an example of how "meaning" is "stored" and "retrieved" within
>the
>>brain.
>>>>do you see what i'm getting at [what i "mean"]?
>>>>no "memory" is "stored" in a precisely-localized way within the brain.
>>rather, the bits and pieces that comprise it occur as tiny
>modifications of
>>the nerual circuitry corresponding to various aspects of one's
>experience
>>with this or that... and everything is "mapped" with respect to either
>>sensory or motor activation, both experientially acquired.
>>>>>the "meaning" or "wrench" was dependent upon the motor activation
>>underpinning the use of the tool within the fellow's experience.
>>Elizabeth Warrington (my speaker last November at the NY Academy of
>Science joint meeting with NYNG) has for many years used patients with
>odd dissociations (e.g. inability to name inanimate objects preseented
>visually, vs. inability to name animate ones presented auditorally) to
>develop a model of brain organization involving modalityXcategory
>interactions. People have, indeed tried to explain some of these odd
>cases in terms of relationships with broad modes of experience (e.g.
>inanimate objects small enough to be manipulated vs. those too large
>for this), and this makes plausible an involvement of areas related to
>actions involving objects represented in "semantic" memory (this is the
>current term for this type oof memory).
>>HOWEVER, I don't know if such memory deficits are "OFTEN" correlated
>with plausibly specific "motor/sensory" sites. If you can give a
>reference for the example you use, it wouod be helpful; one could
>trace backwards (via the article's references) and forwards (via
>Science Citation Abstracts) to see how oftern similar findings have
>been reported.
>>(I think the discussion goes a bit down hill froom this good beginning,
>so I'll leave it out)
>>F. LeFever
>>>
