Home   |   News   |   Discussion Forum   |   Books   |   Curiosity Shop
Discussion Forum
Science Talk
Discuss scientific conundrums with our motley band of bamboozled boffins.
Latest Posts
a serious question to the forum
by Zephir
0 seconds ago
The Concept of the Whole and Threadism
by Kyra M
Today at 02:47 AM
Why is our blood red
by janelee
Yesterday at 10:17 PM
Unified Field Theory?
by TheodoreToth
Yesterday at 08:41 PM
CFL - tempers in the house of (representatives ? )
by paul
Yesterday at 08:10 PM
Search
Custom Search
Sponsored Links
Most Read
Hormones gone wild
Homo superior
New IPCC climate warning
In space, no one can hear you say "doh!"
Bow to your insect overlords!
Penis enlargement surprise: it's possible
Sex and the schizoid factor
Delusions and mental illness
We come in peace – not!
Eeew!
Small penis syndrome a big problem?
Have you hugged your robot today?
Down on the farm - yields, nutrients and soil quality
Cat parasite has global ambitions
Pop goes the planet
The disappearing male
Missing link a tripping chimp?
Inorganic dust formations alive?
Science Shopping
Sci Shop
Peculiar scientific stuff that you didn't even know existed and you don't need.
News And Research

Physics

Climate Change

Space

Natural World

Health

Technology



All 2009 News

Science Books
Book Reviews
Rusty Rockets reviews this week's science titles and lists his all-time faves.
Archives
2009 2008 2007
2006 2005 2004
2003 2002 2001
2000 1999 1998
Discussion Archive
Feature Archive


28 March 2007
Neuronal Behavior Confounds Expectations
by Kate Melville

The idea that the electrical signal patterns generated by neurons represent the encoding of different types of cognitive information appears to be wrong, according to scientists at the Weizmann Institute. Their research, appearing in the journal Neuron, showed that the communication signals between neurons, as measured by the experimenters, were indistinguishable from random neuronal firings. Weizmann's Dr. Ilan Lampl said the results called into question one of the key tenets used to explain how the brain works.

It had been believed that the central nervous system relied on specific patterns in neuronal electrical signals to encode different types of cognitive information. For example, in comparing objects like a table and a chair, the brain would discriminate between the different objects because each object would generate a distinct sequence of patterns within the neural system that the brain then interprets. Reinforcement of relationships between different objects and their associated signals occurred upon repeated presentation of that object, so that its pattern would be reproduced in a precise manner.

Experimental evidence supporting the pattern theory had been found in the past, but when Lampl recorded the activity of neurons in the cortex of anaesthetized rats and analyzed the data, he found no difference in the number of patterns produced or the time it takes for various patterns to repeat themselves. In fact, Lampl says, the recorded data was no different to data that was randomized.

In his conclusion, Lampl drops a bombshell by suggesting that the patterns observed could not be due to the deterministically controlled mechanisms posited in the pattern theory, but occurred purely by chance. "Since the 1980s, many neuroscientists believed they possessed the key for finally beginning to understand the workings of the brain. But we have provided strong evidence to suggest that the brain may not encode information using precise patterns of activity," Lampl concluded.

Related articles:
A Computer In A Single Neuron
Neurons Mix Digital And Analog Functionality
Chaotic Neurons Enhance Brain's Processing

Source: American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science



Home            News            Discussion Forum            Books            Curiosity Shop            About

The terms and conditions governing your use of this website.
Copyright © 1997 - 2009 Science a Go Go and its licensors. All rights reserved.