Posted by Estella on September 3, 2006, at 22:49:13
In reply to Re: :-) » Estella, posted by finelinebob on September 3, 2006, at 20:58:29
I don't really know anything about the nitty gritty of neuro-imaging. I remember a bit for the multi-guess quizzes but I think it was stuff that I crammed and promptly forgot. I will need to return to it at some point, though. When I do modelling in neuro-psychology. Thanks for explaining it to me.
> Bah! It's z-normalization essentially
eh?
(its okay, you don't have to explain that)> Logarthimic relationships are only one type of non-linear relationships.
figures ;-)
> No idea. I'd have to say the relationship is determined by the underlying theory.Goodie :-)
> Biology is too squishy for me
Me too, but the theory is okay :-)
> tumors are sites of abnormally rapid cell growth. Sounds like it would require lots of artery and capillary formation. Denser blood supply - more pings.
I see. That makes sense. I guess you would differentiate between a tumor and an active area because tumors would be more localised. I think that scar tissue can become the focus of a seizure too (where a seizure is increased activity). Thats kinda interesting...
> Now you're getting into what **I** understand the term "brain plasticity" to mean.:-)
My father's second stroke damaged part of his language center, causing some aphasia. Any lesion cause by the stroke I'd imagine would show up blue to black.
Yep.
> Now, in his OT sessions, they gave him lots to read and lots of crosswords to do. He still has very limited aphasia, but nowhere near as bad as it was.Yeah. If he had had the stroke earlier in life he would have probably regained even more or close to complete or even complete function.
> Had he been getting his brain scanned while doing that language-heavy mental work, I'm guessing that area would have relatively "lit up" as his brain rewired itself around the lesion (if that's the theory you believe) or different, unexpected areas of his brain would have lit up (if that's the theory you believe).
Yeah :-) I think that usually it is areas that are close. Though it depends on the task. Most people have language production / comprehension localised in the left hemisphere. A small percentage have it localised in the right. A tinier percentage have bi-lateral speech control. If you have severe damage to your left hemisphere when you are very young then I think your right hemisphere takes over the function. I think that people who are blind from birth have areas that normally process visual information processing auditory information. All those are extreme examples but there is a lot of variation in different peoples brains (which complicates working out localisations across the population).
If you acquire non-cortical blindness when you are a kid I'm not sure if the visual areas start to process auditory stimuli. If you acquire non-cortical blindness late in life I'm not sure if the visual areas start to process auditory stimuli. I'm not sure that ALL individuals who are born blind start to process auditory information with what are typically visual processing areas. I guess there is probably... Considerable variation across individuals.
Er... Do you know what kind of aphasia he had?
I think there are lots of different aphasias for different kinds of task etc. Lots of different language ones too. I've heard that some people can (temporarily) lose categories of flora. Other people can (temporarily) lose categories of fauna. That suggests that the concepts for those categories may be somewhat localised. Makes some kinda evolutionary sense. Don't know if you can lose the categories for kinds of cars (without losing other categories besides that).
poster:Estella
thread:680731
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060901/msgs/682879.html