dickretired

I would probably only repeat myself. That is the lot of aged scientists. It is fresh minds that are needed.

Can’t attend as on dialysis. Would love to be there.

How sure are you that the cerebellar activations reflect meaning as opposed to articulatory activity?

It is critical that this was a test not of STM but retrieval. Dorsal PF does not provide the substrate for STM but for the retieval of information. STM of locations is supported by parietal lip.

I prefer 1. That is what we do when setting up hypothesis A and hypothesis B and testing them against each other in future experiments.

So why am I grousing? I suppose I’m looking for computational model A that makes a different prediction to computational model B and is powerful enough to make predictions for future experiments.

Having read it (!} you are right.They test if ADS is before FOF and find slightly more information in FOF. They inactivate FOF, but they didn’t need a model to think of that.They produce a RNN model and it accounts for the data, both with and without the inactivation (predictions).

Indeed I need to read the paper. The problem with social media as we all know is the temptation to respond impulsively. I plead guilty. I have a bugbear that many computational models are produced without making and then testing predictions. I repeat this ad nauseam and am tripped up.

I agree so long as the computational models make predictions that other models do not, and those predictions are then tested.

We have long known that there is similar activiry in the prefrontal cortex of macaques and the striatum. But the frontal activity occurs slightly earlier.

We need more evidence burbit is what I think.

I suspect that the key to prefrontal is actually the developmebt of parietal.

My response was therefore not appropriate.

I don’r buy that. The default mode involves medial frontal but not the lateral prefrontal.

Yes it looks like it, eg the work of cavada on cats.

But I don’t now think that this can be right because cats and dogs have granular PF and they don’t forage in this way.

I discuss this in my book Understanding the Prefrontal Cortex (2021, OUP). it invol ves the fact that anthropoid primates forage by using the eye and hand. But it remains to explain why this led to granular cortex, ie what the mechanism is that requires granularity (association cortex).

I think cats and dogs have a granular PF cortex and no doubt many other mammals.

No, the MD nucleus also projects to non PF areas in primates (eg parietal).

I should have added differentiation out of the anterior insula/agranular orbital cortex. It ahould not be thought that all this is odd. Rodents lack some parietal areas found in primates and they lack a PMv because they do not grasp items in an individual paw.

So it looks as if the primate PF differentiated out of the tissue of the medial wall in ancestral species.

The best up to date discussion is by Izquirdo in a book chapter. the critical evidence concerns comparative transcriptomic studies. There are similarities in connectivity patterns, but there are also similarities between the connections of the rodent medial wall and the primate ACC.

As you say the issue is one of homology. And this is discussed by Preuss and Wise. And the evidence they review suggests that the medial frontal cortex in rodents is not homologous with primate prefrontal. But tree shrews do have a PF that is homologous.

What are your main disagreements? Happy to discuss them and prepared to be persuaded where I’m wrong. We have never met because I have rarely travelled because of poor health.

This is an important claim since it suggests that it is easy to be mistaken iin detecting ripples. in general it is essential to check signals, whether electrophysiological ( EEG) or vascular (FMRI). It is all too easy to just accept the results a computer program produces.

Mice don’t have a prefrontal cortex (granular PF). They have an ACC and an agranular OF.

This is really interesting work.

The problem with behavioural science is not to do with definitions. It is that it is difficult to control all the variables ((unlike physics).

DON’t understand.

of course experimenters have hypotheses but they don’t need philosophers to tell them what these hypotheses are.