i read that one while i was exploring one of the sites you referred folks to
in another post.
the [paraphrase] 'difficult experimental setup" wasn't described, but
there's so much evidence from selective visual pathway lesioning that
contradicts what these folks are saying that i have to remain skeptical
until i can read more about their experimental design.
my view on 'spontaneous activation', especially in thalamus is that it
'just' reflects 'reticular' activation ramifications, which would, over
'time' average out to an evenly-distributed activation, which would concur
with what the researchers say, all other things being left unchanged... it's
just that there's so much solid evidence that supports the, IMO, fact that
the occular dominance columns' relative size occurs as a function of their
actual, stimulus-dependent activation, i don't see how anyone could
get-around such.
BTW, as is discussed in AoK, Ap6, NDT goes beyond at least what's discussed
in the press release, to account for the simple existence of cortical
'columns', in terms of neural activation... ('sliding fields', AoK, Ap6).
i'm not near a library, and don't have extra $ for fuel, so i'm probably not
going to search-out the article, but from their press release, i don't see
that there's anything new in the stated position.
ken collins
John wrote in message <933066207.567397 at server.australia.net.au>...
>http://www.hhmi.org/news/katz.htm>>>"What's more, Katz and Weliky found that even when input from both eyes is
>cut off, the feedback loop itself can drive spontaneous activity in the
LGN,
>suggesting that the loop plays a key role in development.
>>But perhaps most importantly, the two investigators found evidence that
>contradicts current theories on how the two eyes divide up their
>"territories" in the visual cortex, ending up with equal shares."
>>>>>
