I RETRACT THIS EARLIER POST OF MINE... i'll explain elsewhere.
K. P. Collins
Ken Collins wrote in message ...
>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."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
