| |||||||||
| Bioscience book menu |
|
 | ||
| By: John T. Cacioppo, Gary Berntson ISBN: 1841690996 Publisher: Psychology Press Release Date: 29 December, 2004 Bioscience book rank: 460753 | As a graduate student in Physiological Psychology & Neuroscience, it is refreshing to see a book that demonstrates that Social Psychology and Neuroscience MUST INTEGRATE at some point. This book does a fine job of showing just how compatible these two seemingly disparate fields of study of the brain & mind are. It should be a required text in every Psychology department. The book is well organized and intuitively organized. | |
 | ||
| By: Alwyn Scott ISBN: 0387954023 Publisher: Springer Release Date: 19 June, 2002 Bioscience book rank: 695601 | "Neuroscience: A Mathematical Primer" by Alwyn Scott (Springer, 2002).<br> Submitted by: M.D. Goldfinger, Ph.D., Anatomy & Physiology Department., Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA; mel.goldfinger@wright.edu<p>The study of the brain - Neuroscience - is one of contemporary science's most challenging realms. It is a complex field with dimensions of inquiry available to a variety of scientific and medical fields of study. For those readers interested in neuroscience and who have a background in physical science, engineering, or mathematics, Alwyn Scott's book provides an ideal port of entry. Dr. Scott's book is a systematic `bottom-up' approach to the workings of the nervous system from the cellular to network perspectives. Each of the twelve chapters and six appendices provides a quantitatively-oriented view of the salient physical features of neurons. <p>Dr. Scott is a highly-accomplished scholar of non-linearities in physical systems. His scientific career includes academic and research positions in electrical engineering, computer science, and mathematics at University of Wisconsin, Los Alamos National Labs, University of Arizona, and others. In addition to these accomplishments, the author has published fundamental studies on information propagation in nerve fibers. In his book, Dr. Scott addresses neuronal function from these unique and remarkably eclectic disciplinary perspectives. He writes in terms of physical principles, using the language of mathematics and the insights of engineering. This approach is - alas - not typical in neuroscience, which is often descriptive, avoiding the underlying physical complexities. <p>The first nine chapters cover much of the salient biophysics of neurons. The topics include the physical properties of the neuron and its material components, the mechanisms whereby it captures and harnesses local energy gradients for the generation of electrical currencies, and how such signals are organized as information-containing entities which are modified and disseminated through the substance of the cell, over long distances and through much geometrical complexity. In his presentation, the author covers both well-known as well as little-known or neglected literature and concepts, an invaluable scholarly service which recaptures much significant progress ignored or forgotten elsewhere (the book's bibliographies alone are worth the price of admission). The final three chapters provide an introduction to the loftier issues of neuronal assemblies. All chapters include a recapitulation, which are invaluable for readers new to the subject.<p>The author does not simply provide a review of the many topics in quantitative neuroscience. Rather, Dr. Scott gives the reader a totally original and carefully-constructed step-by-step development of each subject. In those fields most familiar to this reviewer, the author's unique insights and lucid explanations are invaluable, authentically thought-provoking, and highly influential in my current research. <p>For neuroscience students and researchers coming from traditional biology backgrounds, this book provides an important opportunity to share in the unique perspective that physical science brings to neuroscience, aspects which many of us never experienced and were untrained to even imagine. For such readers, this book also will help to expand your knowledge of mathematical expression as applied to a familiar realm. Younger neuroscientists in particular who feel unsatisfied with the traditional descriptive approach can explore a new world of insight through the eyes of a brilliant analyst and a caring teacher.<p>In summary, Dr. Scott's book is both a highly-informative reference as well as a superb tutorial on the biophysics of neurons. Its content will be very useful for both new students of neuroscience as well for advanced students and researchers in this field. For readers from backgrounds in physics, engineering, and mathematics, this book will bring you comfortably into the neuroscience domain. For instructors seeking a textbook in theoretical neuroscience, computational neuroscience, or mathematical neurobiology courses, this book will be useful as a superb primary text or source for extra readings. <p>In short, "Neuroscience: A Mathematical Primer" by Alwyn Scott is highly recommended. Dr. Scott has made an invaluable contribution to the neuroscience literature...it is truly an instant classic! | |
 | ||
| By: Marie T. Banich ISBN: 0618122109 Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Company Release Date: 2004 Bioscience book rank: 495650 | ||
 | ||
| By: J. Bickle ISBN: 1402013027 Publisher: Springer Release Date: 31 May, 2003 Bioscience book rank: 497998 | ||
 | ||
| By: Benjamin Libet, Stephen M. Kosslyn ISBN: 067401846X Publisher: Harvard University Press Release Date: 28 October, 2005 Bioscience book rank: 298753 | Mind Time is an incredible book suitable for anyone interested in consciousness and neuroscience. Engulfed in cognitive neuroscience, yet keenly observant of the philosophy of mind, Libet's Mind Time finds a beautifully defined line between awareness and the potential there of. Through his years of research and numerous studies, this great scientist has revealed more about the nature of conscious awareness than cognitive philosophers could ever dream. How he does this is simply by repeatedly observing and verifying the temporal factor in consciousness, and leaving the reader with only one wonderful, inspiring conclusion: That we are, without a doubt, dictated by our subconscious awareness, and that there certainly is a fine line between what I think, and what I unknowingly have already thought of, called the threshold of conscious awareness. I participated in two of Libet's experiments when I was a grad student, and knew his work well. I went on in neuroscience rather than perception, but I got well trained in both fields. So I thought I would make a few comments on that, especially in regard to the previous reviewer's remarks. I enclose those in brackets and then comment on them in my review. It's a well done review in many ways but there are some problems with it, too, and I had some additional things to add about Libet's ideas, so I thought I'd comment on that, too. <br /> <br />[He holds the very dated notion that the only valid scientific knowledge attainable is that which can be falsified. Thus he shuns aside every philosophical, or scientific for that matter, progress done because he believes it cannot be put to empirical test. Circle of Vienna, here we go again.] <br /> <br />This is the classical Karl Popper falsifiability criterian, rather than the Vienna Circle per se, but every perceptual scientist of that generation (including me) was educated that way. No big deal. They still made more progress in 20 years than in the previous 150. <br /> <br />[Libet famously found that there is a delay in consicous awareness. That is, a stimulus becomes conscious if it elicits brain activity that lasts for 500 miliseconds or so. THat is, the difference between cosncious and unconsicous brain activity, is a matter of duration. (hence the title of the book). We do not experience the world as lagging behind, because consicousness is refered to the earlier apparition of another type of brain activity. So far so good. His evidence is strong, robust, and so far, very significant to the prospects of explaining the neural bases of consciousness. But is Libet right?] <br /> <br />[Well, Daniel Dennett does not think so. He claims the delay is due not to consciousness per se, but to the laying down of a memory trace for the stimulus to be reported. Libet argues that Dennett is wrong, because patients with no hippocampus (memory defects) are still conscious. Maybe he is right. But Libet, a scientist, seems to preocupied with philsophers and ignores other lines of evidence.] <br /> <br />They're both right, as the real situation is now known to be more complex. The brain can react before consciousness is aware of a percept. Occulomotor tracking by the visual system in the superior colliculus is a good example. But some percepts seem to require the intervention of consciousness, such as in complex perceptual processing and perceptual associations. So although I like Libet's ideas and I believe he was mostly right, there are exceptions. (Nothing in the brain is simple, unfortunately). <br /> <br />Furthermore, stroboscopic visual experiments on very short term or iconic memory, showed that memory is almost photographic for the first few hundred milliseconds following the visual presentation, but quickly fades. This is such a short period of time that this sort of memory would have to be electrical in nature. <br /> <br />Actually, nerve action is not really electrical in nature in the sense of a wire conducting a current. This is a common misconception, and has lead to all sorts of misunderstandings and speculation about the brain, such as whether the brain could transmit some kind of electromagnetic radiation which could be responsible for paranormal powers such as telepathy. Unfortunately, the brain doesn't really work that way. Rather, the nerve action potential is due to ion flux, a self-propagating reversal of negativity that travels down the nerve axon. There are no radio waves so there is no way telepathy or similar phenomena could work that way. <br /> <br />[Nor does he consider the fact of epilepsy, where brain activity is quite long in duration, but different in amplitude and frequency, and the patient is unconsicous. Time cannot be the only factor. If it is, proving so requires more than what LIbet offers.] <br /> <br />The reviewer is simply wrong about this. Epilepsy is not a normal, and in fact is a very abnormal phenomenon of consciousness, and the existence of what are known as paroxysmal depolarization shifts, or very unusual brain waves, during epilepsy, are proof of that. <br /> <br />Furthermore, epilepsy is actually very complex, and there are many different types of epilepsy, including ones where the person is conscious. Some forms of epilepsy are not even unpleasant. There are rare types of temporal lobe epilepsy that produce intense visions and ecstatic feelings of well being and happiness. There is even a type of epilepsy that causes extremely intense and long-lasting orgasms, since it occurs in the thalamic nucleus responsible for orgasms, in the nucleus reticularis gigantocellularis, if I remember right (not sure since it's been so long :-)). So epilepsy is not even an issue here. This is clear to anyone who understands the electrophysiology (which was my field). <br /> <br />[Libet argues that Dennett is wrong, because patients with no hippocampus (memory defects) are still consicous. Maybe he is right. But Libet, a scientist, seems to preocupied with philsophers and ignores other lines of evidence.] <br /> <br />Libet might be right about this, but arguing from the standpoint of limbic system memory mechanisms and evidence is very tricky, because the limbic system participates many aspects of memory, including such extremely subtle things as the selective inhibition of retroactive interference (as discussed by Robert Isaacson in his famous book on the limbic system); in other words, it aids in the inhibition and forgetting of certain memories as well as in the laying down and preservation of memories. Hence, for now, I'd leave the limbic system alone on that question, as it's just too slippery. <br /> <br />Besides, it's not just the hippocampus that's involved in temporal lobe memory mechanisms; the hippocampus also connects by means of a special pathway with the adjacent entorhinal cortex and that has a role in memory too, as neuroanatomists Carl Cottman and L. M. Cowan showed in their neuroanatomical studies of that area. <br /> <br />There's more I could say, but I'll leave it at that for now. Benjamin Libet deserves some kind of prize. His studies, pioneering work on the neurophysiology of consicousness, were conducted back when there was no ¨cognitive¨ in cognitive neuroscience, and much less the word ¨consciousness¨ in science in general. His work is certainly now familiar to most who are interested in the philosophy of mind, or the neural bases of the mind. In this respect, this book advances few new evidence. But it does advance LIbets speculations on the significance of his finds. <br /> <br />He starts the book with very shaky philosophical assumptions. He explicitly says the scientific study of consciousness must make no assumptions on the mind-brain relationship. Yet he claims that qualia are not explainable in physical terms, that consicousness and qualia are the same thing, that the only valid form of evidence is instrospection, that cosnciousness is a content independent phenomenon. These are a prioiri assumptions. None will be admitted by most without argument, but Libet expects us to. All of this stems, of course, from LIbets extreme verificationism, disguised as scientific rigour. He holds the very dated notion that the only valid scientific knowledge attainable is that which can be falsified. Thus he shuns aside every philosophical, or scientific for that matter, progress done because he believes it cannot be put to empirical test. Circle of Vienna, here we go again. <br /> <br />But nobody is a verificationist anymore. At least not philosophers. And given that scientists interested in consicousness would part from Libets ideas, and philosophers will too, Libet is alone against the world. <br /> <br />Libet famously found that there is a delay in consicous awareness. That is, a stimulus becomes conscious if it elicits brain activity that lasts for 500 miliseconds or so. THat is, the difference between cosncious and unconsicous brain activity, is a matter of duration. (hence the title of the book). We do not experience the world as lagging behind, because consicousness is refered to the earlier apparition of another type of brain activity. So far so good. His evidence is strong, robust, and so far, very significant to the prospects of explaining the neural bases of consciousness. But is Libet right? <br />Well, Daniel Dennett does not think so. He claims the delay is due not to cosnciousness per se, but to the laying down of a memory trace for the stimulus to be reported. Libet argues that Dennett is wrong, because patients with no hippocampus (memory defects) are still consicous. Maybe he is right. But Libet, a scientist, seems to preocupied with philsophers and ignores other lines of evidence. <br /> <br />LIbet holds that the only thing that makes a stimulus consicous is the time the neural activity lasts, not where the activity is at. Consider ,now, spatial neglect. In this condition, patients are unaware of stimulus in the oposite visual space of a unilateral parietal lesion. This means that libet would have to argue that the duration of brain activity in visual areas is mediated by the parietal cortex, which seems odd. What about brain imaging studies. One of them, conducted by Lumer and Rees, found that the difference between a conscious and an unconsicous stimulus was reflected in a fMRI only with a difference in intensity of activation, not duration or location. This is direct counter evidence to LIbets proposal. Libet does not consider these studies. Nor does he consider the fact of epilepsy, where brain activity is quite long in duration, but different in amplitude and frequency, and the patient is unconsicous. Time cannot be the only factor. If it is, proving so requires more than what LIbet offers. <br /> <br />Libet also famoulsy found that brain activity preceeds the consicous will to act for about 200 miliseconds. He also proposes that the notion of free will can be mantained, because there is time to veto consciously willed actions. You do not begin your actions, but you modulate them. <br /> <br />Again, his evidence is strong, robust and significant. But what about his 'veto¨speculation. IT is unecessary. Firstly, materialists should not be surprised with the fact that cosncious will comes late in the game. If consicous will is the result of brain processes, it cannot antedate these processes. Secondly, the obvious question arises if the veto function is not preceeded by unconsicous brain activity in turn. Libet here argues that it must not, for even if the awareness of the decision to veto requires brain activity, the content of that awareness (the actual descition to veto), need not. This reply depends of course, on the independence of consicousness from its content, an assumption that LIbet gives us no reason to accept. It is also, of course, clear that the analogy Libet tries to make is that between internally and externally generated activity. It is obvious in perception that the brain activity that causes consicousness of an object in the world is one thing, and that the object in the external world requires no brain activity. But it is not so obvious with a ¨decision to veto¨ because such ¨thing¨ is not depndent on external imput. IT is dependent on internally generated, BRAIN generated, activity. Alas, the analogy fails. <br /> <br />It seems libet proposes his veto theory only because he thinks that otherwise we will be nothing but automatons, mere robots. We would loose sense of responsibility. And the guilt would fall on his discoveries. BUt nobody is claiming this at all (well, some have taken LIbets work to mean this, but the point is that it need not). Brain activity is at the end still OUR brain activity. Brain activity can still be said to be consicous or uncosncious. Resposibility need not fear determinism, wether determinsism is right or wrong. <br /> <br />But Libet, of course, would not consider speculating on any of this, because it would not be testable. And accordingly, Libet proposes his mental-field-theory, a theory of consicousness explaining all these findings, along with the description of how the theory could be experimentally tested (it consists of an ingenius way to see if an neurally isolated cortical slice can cause consicousness in a subject). The theory holds that a consicous-field, somehting like a force field, that depends on neural activity but does not need it to be transmitted from brain area to brain area, would explain the mind-brain relationship. Is he right? here we must wait for somebody to carry out the experiment. Any bets? Well, I would go with those who believe nerve fibers serve a purpose. <br /> <br />Libet, as I said, deserves a prize. He deserves his book to be read by those interested in the field, too. And his findings will shape, and must be explicable by, any theory of consicousness proposed. But his speculations on the mind-brain relationship will probably have the same fate as those of of his mentor, Sir John Eccles (anybody remembers psychons?). | |
 | ||
| By: Mary V. Solanto, Amy F. T. Arnsten, F. Xavier Castellanos ISBN: 0195133714 Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA Release Date: 15 January, 2001 Bioscience book rank: 449341 | This is an important technical work for anyone concerned with Attention Deficit Disorder. While not ideal for those without advanced degrees, parents and adults in an ADHD system may find it worth their while to work through the highly specialized language. The articles assess from different scientific perspectives the trajectory of stimulant medication. While priced very fairly given its highly technical content, ADHD support groups maybe able to share the cost and the book. Members within the group could select a chapter, and then present it to their group. Most of the articles contain at least a few sections that will be understandable to non-scientists. Such a process could improve physician patient communication about the medication. Detractors of stimulant medication have to come to grips with the enormous relief that these medications provide for adults and children. While the specific locations and dynamics of the epenephrine and dopamine interactions remain shrouded, the clinical evidence overwhelming attested to the efficacy of stimulant medication. Until detractors can produce similar empirical data, resources have to be allocated to treatments that actually work. The book's purpose is to bring together the best and most current data available as a way of supporting and furthering pharmaceutical research. In this purpose the editor's and contributor's reveals science at its best, methodically navigating a dense forest of dimly understood variables in an attempt to relieve human suffering and push back the boundaries of ignorance. They echo our ancestors who learned to harness fire. | |
 | ||
| By: Roger Barker, Stephen Barasi, Michael J. Neal ISBN: 1405111240 Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Release Date: 29 August, 2003 Bioscience book rank: 550926 | ||
 | ||
| By: Viviane Green ISBN: 1583911359 Publisher: Routledge Release Date: 09 December, 2003 Bioscience book rank: 732804 | ||
 | ||
| By: James D. Stoehr ISBN: 0791085740 Publisher: Chelsea House Publications Release Date: September, 2005 Bioscience book rank: 468324 | ||
 | ||
| By: Charles G. Gross ISBN: 0262571358 Publisher: The MIT Press Release Date: 16 July, 1999 Bioscience book rank: 768678 | ||
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 Total 1978 books
|
| ||||||||