since you've brought it up, although i retracted my comments to the original
post, in the context you raise, here, i stand on what i posted.
studies of early hemispherectomy, 'phantom limb' cortical-mapping
palsticity, and the like, demonstrate the great plasticity inherent in early
brain development, and what's 'normal' in a highly-specific 'area' of an
adult brain, needn't be 'carved-in-stone', in the same, highly-specific way,
in the brain of an adult, hemispherectomized, etc., early-on.
and, as i discussed in reply to your 'sense of 'recency' post, one
'recognizes' a new object's 'newness'... it's relative novelty... as is
explained in AoK, Ap5, via it's correlated TD E/I.
information-content relative to the 'new object' is acquired as is explained
in the same section of AoK, Ap5. the "object's" 'memory' is, subsequently,
'addressed' as is discussed in AoK, Ap6, on the basis of it's
information-content... all via TD E/I-minimization.
K. P. Collins
F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <7nu17a$a38 at dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>Hmmm..how does one recognize a NEW object? One might confabulate and
>claim recognition of a new objectt (especially if one has frontal
>lesions), but wouldn't valid recognition be of an OLD object???
>>On the oter hand, it was in Australia, in fact (Cairns) that I
>presented a paper by Dr. Elena Kumkova and myself which reported use of
>a visual memory test based on "new" objects (i.e. NOBODY had seen them
>before), which had been devised so as to discourage the kind of
>analysis and verbal description the "nonsense shapes" used in SOME
>(most?) visual memory tests, and encourage seeing them "as a whole" or
>"as an object", the way one USUALLY sees a face.
>>Some of our (behavioral) data did support the idea that they were
>treated the same way faces were, so it is satisfying to see (if that is
>what this study shows) that functional neuroimaging data might also,,
>in the case of some "new objects".
>>Of course, before we tested recognition we showed them to our subjects,
>so they could tell them from REALLY new ones which we did NOT let them
>see before testing. (That is, they recognized the OLD objects and
>could discriminate them from the REALLY new objects).
>>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>New York Neuropsychology Group
>>>In <933043949.381386 at server.australia.net.au> "John"
><johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/1998-99/98-154.html>>>>>
