G., 1982, Brain Damage and Recovery: Research and Clinical Perspectives. W., 1969, Electrical stimulation of the brain in behavioral context, Annu. W., 1985, Synaptic Plasticity, Guilford Press, New York.ĭoty, R. B., 1964, Destruction of the “pyramidal tract” in man, J. S., 1982, Neurons in the rat dentate gyrus granular layer substantially increase during juvenile and adult life, Science 216:890–892.īucy, P. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.īayer, S.A., Yackel, J. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. We then examine the question of whether they are useful concepts to consider as explanations of recovery of function. We revisit the concepts by briefly looking at the history before considering their current forms. These concepts were debated extensively for the first half of this century and now are still invoked periodically as explanations for recovery of function. Thus, incomplete damage within a zone is compensated for by the remaining area. The equipotentiality hypothesis states that each portion of any given area is able to encode or produce the behavior normally controlled by the entire area. Thus, removal of any cortical tissue produces a behavioral change that is proportional to the amount of tissue removed. The mass action hypothesis asserts that the entire cortex participates in every behavior. Two conceptual views of cortical function have evolved and been used a number of times over the past 150 years to explain puzzling effects of brain damage: mass action and equipotentiality.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |