We discussed the method that led to enunciation by some researchers of the existence of mirror neurons, the resulting paradigm “mirror neuron system”, the existence or non existence of mirror neurons in monkeys and subsequent confirmation of the existence of similar neurons in humans. In developing this work we have been taken into account the necessity that arguments, pro and/or against, were synchronous or at least not in obvious contradiction with the observations from other disciplines: psychology, psychiatry, neurology, neurosurgery, neurophysiopathology. The survey conducted during this work has raised many doubts about the “mirror neuron system” paradigm and the consequent announcement of mirror neuron, in the meaning inferred
from the work proposed by Gallese et al. and Rizzolatti et al. in 1996, and by Rizzolatti et al. in 2001 and in 2006, because result of an experimental
protocol that was deemed inadequate. From the examination of consulted documentation one can only hypothesize that a more or less widespread network of neurons, in a subject supplied with previous experience on what he is observing, activates a function seemingly similar to “mirroring”, trying to interpret an action or what happened around, to program ad action, or to help to perform an action. Activity that manifests also in early way: in this case the virtual/imagined action, it is brought to completion before the observed action is completed. After a discussion on the consistency of the basic assumptions that have combined to define the mirror neuron, we discuss about the opportunity that the “mirror neuron system” will be replaced from time to time with paradigms closer to observation, as an example we refer to as anticipatory borrowing from posturology, the “concept neurons” and so on. The model should not cover a class of neurons, but one of several models to be used in teaching to classify some brain’s functions. This approach should allow to arrange some interpretations based on the “mirror neuron system”: imitation, the phenomenon of comparison between similar and not similar, and some Arbid’s arguments on language too biased in favor of the “mirror neuron system” as noted by Bickerton.

(From: Mirror Neurons in monkey cortical area 5: there was experimental evidence? And in human? Rivista Medica, Year XIV, Number 60 - ISNN 1127-6339)

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2008/pressRelease20080414/

A possible problem with such a study, though, could be instrumental sensitivity.

I believe that although Sherrington did coin the term ’synapse”, the term “neuron” was coined by Heinrich Wilhelm Gottfried von Waldeyer-Hartz in 1891.

“For example, whereas lesions of the BLA do not affect acquisition of conditioned approach towards food during a tone or light CS, they do abolish the sensitivity of approach responses elicited by that CS to post-training devaluation of its associated US.” –from “Parallel Incentive Processing”, Balleine & Killcross, 2006 Trends in Neuro

17 - 18 post-graduate studies Harvard Business Review
19+ post-graduate degree IRS Code

Basic Data
Sentences 2
Total Words 142
Letters 911
Digits 0
Characters 1082

Derived Data
Words/Sentence 71.0
Syllables/Word 2.27
Syllables/Sentence 161.5
Letters/Syllable 2.82
Letters/Word 6.42
Letters/Sentence 455.5

I guess there is no easy way to explain away 100 billion neurons and a quadrillion synapses. Still, it is nice to see it all in one place as you’ve done. Bravissimo.

http://www.stroke.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SS_MAG_ma2007_brain

Love Neurevolution, by the way. Thanks!