<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: History’s Top Brain Computation Insights: Day 23</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.neurevolution.net/2007/04/24/history%e2%80%99s-top-brain-computation-insights-day-23/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.neurevolution.net/2007/04/24/history%e2%80%99s-top-brain-computation-insights-day-23/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the cognitive revolution in neuroscience</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:25:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: M.C.</title>
		<link>http://www.neurevolution.net/2007/04/24/history%e2%80%99s-top-brain-computation-insights-day-23/#comment-577</link>
		<dc:creator>M.C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neurevolution.net/2007/04/24/history%e2%80%99s-top-brain-computation-insights-day-23/#comment-577</guid>
		<description>Yes, I've seen this work. I'm a bit skeptical of the results because interpretation of microstimulation results is problematic, and interpretation of microstimulation over an extended period (as was done in the Graziano et al., 2002 study) is even more so. There are likely feedback connections from primary motor cortex to other (higher) motor regions, and extended stimulation likely recruits these regions. Therefore, we cannot be sure that the function of motor cortex is reflected in these stimulation experiments. That commentary by Krauzlis you referenced covers all of these issues. I'm looking forward to seeing if Graziano's interpretation of his results are valid, given future work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I&#8217;ve seen this work. I&#8217;m a bit skeptical of the results because interpretation of microstimulation results is problematic, and interpretation of microstimulation over an extended period (as was done in the Graziano et al., 2002 study) is even more so. There are likely feedback connections from primary motor cortex to other (higher) motor regions, and extended stimulation likely recruits these regions. Therefore, we cannot be sure that the function of motor cortex is reflected in these stimulation experiments. That commentary by Krauzlis you referenced covers all of these issues. I&#8217;m looking forward to seeing if Graziano&#8217;s interpretation of his results are valid, given future work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.neurevolution.net/2007/04/24/history%e2%80%99s-top-brain-computation-insights-day-23/#comment-574</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neurevolution.net/2007/04/24/history%e2%80%99s-top-brain-computation-insights-day-23/#comment-574</guid>
		<description>have you seen this paper?

Graziano MSA, Taylor CSR, and Moore T. (2002). Complex movements evoked by microstimulation of precentral cortex. Neuron 34: 841-851.

and commentary:
Krauzlis RJ. (2002). Reaching for answers. Neuron 34: 673-674.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>have you seen this paper?</p>
<p>Graziano MSA, Taylor CSR, and Moore T. (2002). Complex movements evoked by microstimulation of precentral cortex. Neuron 34: 841-851.</p>
<p>and commentary:<br />
Krauzlis RJ. (2002). Reaching for answers. Neuron 34: 673-674.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
