DOCSLIB.ORG

Methodological Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Methodological Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience REVIEW published: 29 November 2016 doi: 10.3389/fnint.2016.00041 Methodological Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience Boris Kotchoubey 1*†, Felix Tretter 2,3*†, Hans A. Braun 4, Thomas Buchheim 5, Andreas Draguhn 6, Thomas Fuchs 7, Felix Hasler 8, Heiner Hastedt 9, Thilo Hinterberger 10, Georg Northoff 11, Ingo Rentschler 12, Stephan Schleim 13, Stephan Sellmaier 14, Ludger Tebartz Van Elst 15 and Wolfgang Tschacher 16 1 Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, 2 Bertalanffy Centre for the Study of Systems Science, Vienna, Austria, 3 Bavarian Academy for Addiction and Health Issues (BAS), Munich, Germany, 4 AG Neurodynamics, Institute of Physiology and Pathophysiology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany, 5 Department of Philosophy I, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 6 Institute of Physiology and Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, 7 Department of General Psychiatry, Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, 8 Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 9 Institute of Philosophy, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany, 10 Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, University Clinic of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany, 11 Institute of Mental Health Research: Mind, Brain Imaging and Neuroethics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 12 Institute of Medical Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 13 Department of Theory and History of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 14 Research Centre Neurophilosophy and Ethics of Neuroscience, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 15 Section of Neuropsychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, 16 Experimental Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Edited by: Neuroscience is a multidisciplinary effort to understand the structures and functions Patricia M. Di Lorenzo, of the brain and brain-mind relations. This effort results in an increasing amount of Binghamton University, USA data, generated by sophisticated technologies. However, these data enhance our Reviewed by: Elizabeth B. Torres, descriptive knowledge, rather than improve our understanding of brain functions. Rutgers University, USA This is caused by methodological gaps both within and between subdisciplines Brigitte Falkenburg, Technical University of Dortmund, constituting neuroscience, and the atomistic approach that limits the study of macro- Germany and mesoscopic issues. Whole-brain measurement technologies do not resolve these *Correspondence: issues, but rather aggravate them by the complexity problem. The present article is Boris Kotchoubey [email protected] devoted to methodological and epistemic problems that obstruct the development of Felix Tretter human neuroscience. We neither discuss ontological questions (e.g., the nature of the [email protected] mind) nor review data, except when it is necessary to demonstrate a methodological †These authors have contributed issue. As regards intradisciplinary methodological problems, we concentrate on those equally to this work. within neurobiology (e.g., the gap between electrical and chemical approaches to Received: 27 April 2016 neurophysiological processes) and psychology (missing theoretical concepts). As Accepted: 15 November 2016 regards interdisciplinary problems, we suggest that core disciplines of neuroscience can Published: 29 November 2016 be integrated using systemic concepts that also entail human-environment relations. We Citation: Kotchoubey B, Tretter F, Braun HA, emphasize the necessity of a meta-discussion that should entail a closer cooperation Buchheim T, Draguhn A, Fuchs T, with philosophy as a discipline of systematic reflection. The atomistic reduction should Hasler F, Hastedt H, Hinterberger T, be complemented by the explicit consideration of the embodiedness of the brain and the Northoff G, Rentschler I, Schleim S, Sellmaier S, Tebartz Van Elst L and embeddedness of humans. The discussion is aimed at the development of an explicit Tschacher W (2016) Methodological methodology of integrative human neuroscience, which will not only link different fields Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience. and levels, but also help in understanding clinical phenomena. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 10:41. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2016.00041 Keywords: brain, methodology, mind, neuroscience, psychology, systems science Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience | www.frontiersin.org 1 November 2016 | Volume 10 | Article 41 Kotchoubey et al. Towards an Integrative Human Neuroscience INTRODUCTION: THE MOSAIC OF THE work?’’; ‘‘How is its work linked with our human experience?’’) NEUROSCIENCES from a specific viewpoint. It is not yet clear how that heterogeneous ‘‘multitude of perspectives’’ will contribute to Neuroscience has provided a huge amount of knowledge of the an integrated understanding of the brain and its functions structure and function of the brain. However, an increasing (Chalmers, 1996; Latour, 1999; Block, 2007). What are the number of publications makes it difficult to estimate the conceptual, methodological and epistemological requirements epistemic value of these results, their interpretations and their that neuroscience should fulfil to construct an integrated and practical relevance. For this reason, we want to discuss some consistent picture of mind and brain? methodological problems that arise in different branches of neuroscience that may hinder integration of these branches Can the Subdisciplines of Neuroscience into a unitary science. Methodology in this context does not Be Integrated? mean merely listing presently used techniques but a theory This general question can be specialized in several of the epistemic value of these techniques. This goal, i.e., an methodological questions: analysis of the methodology of neuroscience, is concretized below in Section ‘‘The Aims of the Article’’. To avoid – How close are the views of the different neuroscientific misunderstanding, we should first say what this article is disciplines to each other? Are these views only associatively not about. related to each other, do they complement or even overlap each It is not a comprehensive review of facts and findings of other? neuroscience. Such a review is hardly possible within a limited – Should we accept the methodological plurality, or can we volume of a journal article. Accordingly, we do not claim reduce ‘‘higher level’’ disciplines to ‘‘lower-level’’ disciplines? that our analysis is a balanced reflection of the actual trends Does the notion of ‘‘integration’’ (if, e.g., psychology would and advances of neuroscience; particularly, it is rather brain- be integrated into neuroscience) imply that the corresponding centered and may therefore underestimate the importance of discipline would lose its specific status and fully dissolve in the studies of the peripheral nervous system. Also, we do the new disciplinary complex? If yes, does it hold true for all not discuss ontological aspects of neuroscience. Such questions participating disciplines or only for some of them? Does the as ‘‘Are brain and mind identical?’’ or ‘‘Does human ‘‘self’’ richness of the relationships between neuroscience and other really exist?’’, however intriguing they are, have no place in sciences indicate that neuroscience is a universal or unifying this text. The article is not about what the brain and mind science? Do concepts and methods of neuroscience replace or are, but rather, about whether and how we (mis)understand integrate concepts and methods of other disciplines? them. – Do we have a strict methodology in neuroscience that, e.g., reminds that any localization of mental functions must Terminology, Epistemic Objects and demonstrate not only the necessity of the respective structure Self-Understanding of Neurosciences for a specific function but also its sufficiency for this function? Neuroscience is the multidisciplinary study of those who – Do we have sufficient theories already? Do mathematical are ‘‘working on the nervous system’’ (e.g., Journal of models capture mental phenomena? 1 Neuroscience ). Neuroscience involves disciplines ranging from Presently, we do not claim to answer these great methodological physics over biology to psychiatry and psychology and questions. We also do not propose any specific perspective, pretends to include sociology, economics and anthropology. although we have a clear preference for a systemic and even This interdisciplinary character of neuroscience has a charming ecological extension of the view of neuroscience; but this view affordance for cooperation across nearly all academic fields. On should be worked out later in a special initiative. the other hand, this plurality overshadows the serious conceptual, methodological and theoretical problems both within each The Aims of the Article participating discipline and between them. Combinations of Regarding these basic questions, in the following sections we shall different scientific disciplines suggest interdisciplinary linkages discuss six main points: between different concepts, methodological strategies and contexts. Thus we find composite hybrid-disciplines such as First, we shall give an overview
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toward a Critical-Reflexive Sociology
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-2011 Mediating Justice: Toward A Critical-Reflexive Sociology George Christopher Gondo [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Inequality and Stratification Commons, Politics and Social Change Commons, and the Theory, Knowledge and Science Commons Recommended Citation Gondo, George Christopher, "Mediating Justice: Toward A Critical-Reflexive Sociology. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2011. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1069 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by George Christopher Gondo entitled "Mediating Justice: Toward A Critical-Reflexive Sociology." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Sociology. Harry F. Dahms, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Stephen P. Dandaneau, R. Scott Frey Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Mediating Justice: Toward a Critical-reflexive Sociology A Thesis Presented for the Master of Arts Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville George Christopher Gondo December 2011 Copyright © 2011 by George C.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioral Neuroscience Uab Graduate Handbook
    Behavioral Neuroscience Ph.D. Program Policies, Guidelines, & Procedures Student Handbook 2021-2022 University of Alabama at Birmingham Table of Contents Mission Statement __________________________________________ 3 History of the Program _______________________________________ 3 Policies and Procedures ______________________________________ 4 Overview of Student Career ___________________________________ 5 Typical Courses ____________________________________________ 5 Progress Reports ___________________________________________ 6 2nd Year Research Project __________________________________ 7 Qualifying Examination _______________________________________ 8 Dissertation ________________________________________________ 10 Behavioral Neuroscience Student Checklist _______________________ 13 Master’s Degree ____________________________________________ 15 Policies Regarding Adequate Progress __________________________ 16 Policies on Remunerated Activities _____________________________ 16 Vacation, Leave, Holiday Guidelines ____________________________ 17 Degree Requirements and Associated Procedures ________________ 18 2 BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM Mission Statement and History of the Program Mission Statement Behavioral neuroscience is represented by scientists with interests in the physiological and neural substrates of behavior. The mission of the Behavioral Neuroscience Ph.D. program is to produce outstanding young scientists capable of pursuing independent research careers in the field of behavioral neuroscience by providing graduate
    [Show full text]
  • The Creation of Neuroscience
    The Creation of Neuroscience The Society for Neuroscience and the Quest for Disciplinary Unity 1969-1995 Introduction rom the molecular biology of a single neuron to the breathtakingly complex circuitry of the entire human nervous system, our understanding of the brain and how it works has undergone radical F changes over the past century. These advances have brought us tantalizingly closer to genu- inely mechanistic and scientifically rigorous explanations of how the brain’s roughly 100 billion neurons, interacting through trillions of synaptic connections, function both as single units and as larger ensem- bles. The professional field of neuroscience, in keeping pace with these important scientific develop- ments, has dramatically reshaped the organization of biological sciences across the globe over the last 50 years. Much like physics during its dominant era in the 1950s and 1960s, neuroscience has become the leading scientific discipline with regard to funding, numbers of scientists, and numbers of trainees. Furthermore, neuroscience as fact, explanation, and myth has just as dramatically redrawn our cultural landscape and redefined how Western popular culture understands who we are as individuals. In the 1950s, especially in the United States, Freud and his successors stood at the center of all cultural expla- nations for psychological suffering. In the new millennium, we perceive such suffering as erupting no longer from a repressed unconscious but, instead, from a pathophysiology rooted in and caused by brain abnormalities and dysfunctions. Indeed, the normal as well as the pathological have become thoroughly neurobiological in the last several decades. In the process, entirely new vistas have opened up in fields ranging from neuroeconomics and neurophilosophy to consumer products, as exemplified by an entire line of soft drinks advertised as offering “neuro” benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Tor Wager Diana L
    Tor Wager Diana L. Taylor Distinguished Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences Dartmouth College Email: [email protected] https://wagerlab.colorado.edu Last Updated: July, 2019 Executive summary ● Appointments: Faculty since 2004, starting as Assistant Professor at Columbia ​ University. Associate Professor in 2009, moved to University of Colorado, Boulder in 2010; Professor since 2014. 2019-Present: Diana L. Taylor Distinguished Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Dartmouth College. ● Publications: 240 publications with >50,000 total citations (Google Scholar), 11 papers ​ cited over 1000 times. H-index = 79. Journals include Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, Nature Methods, PNAS, Psychological Science, PLoS Biology, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Nature Reviews Neurology, Nature Medicine, Journal of Neuroscience. ● Funding: Currently principal investigator on 3 NIH R01s, and co-investigator on other ​ collaborative grants. Past funding sources include NIH, NSF, Army Research Institute, Templeton Foundation, DoD. P.I. on 4 R01s, 1 R21, 1 RC1, 1 NSF. ● Awards: Awards include NSF Graduate Fellowship, MacLean Award from American ​ Psychosomatic Society, Colorado Faculty Research Award, “Rising Star” from American Psychological Society, Cognitive Neuroscience Society Young Investigator Award, Web of Science “Highly Cited Researcher”, Fellow of American Psychological Society. Two patents on research products. ● Outreach: >300 invited talks at universities/international conferences since 2005. ​ Invited talks in Psychology, Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychiatry, Neurology, Anesthesiology, Radiology, Medical Anthropology, Marketing, and others. Media outreach: Featured in New York Times, The Economist, NPR (Science Friday and Radiolab), CBS Evening News, PBS special on healing, BBC, BBC Horizons, Fox News, 60 Minutes, others.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Systems Neuroscience Explanations Mechanistic?
    Are Systems Neuroscience Explanations Mechanistic? Carlos Zednik [email protected] Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Osnabrück 49069 Osnabrück, Germany Paper to be presented at: Philosophy of Science Association 24th Biennial Meeting (Chicago, IL), November 2014 Abstract Whereas most branches of neuroscience are thought to provide mechanistic explanations, systems neuroscience is not. Two reasons are traditionally cited in support of this conclusion. First, systems neuroscientists rarely, if ever, rely on the dual strategies of decomposition and localization. Second, they typically emphasize organizational properties over the properties of individual components. In this paper, I argue that neither reason is conclusive: researchers might rely on alternative strategies for mechanism discovery, and focusing on organization is often appropriate and consistent with the norms of mechanistic explanation. Thus, many explanations in systems neuroscience can also be viewed as mechanistic explanations. 1 1. Introduction There is a widespread consensus in philosophy of science that neuroscientists provide mechanistic explanations. That is, they seek the discovery and description of the mechanisms responsible for the behavioral and neurological phenomena being explained. This consensus is supported by a growing philosophical literature on past and present examples from various branches of neuroscience, including molecular (Craver 2007; Machamer, Darden, and Craver 2000), cognitive (Bechtel 2008; Kaplan and Craver 2011), and computational
    [Show full text]
  • Maintaining Meaningful Expressions of Romantic Love in a Material World
    Reconciling Eros and Neuroscience: Maintaining Meaningful Expressions of Romantic Love in a Material World by ANDREW J. PELLITIERI* Boston University Abstract Many people currently working in the sciences of the mind believe terms such as “love” will soon be rendered philosophically obsolete. This belief results from a common assumption that such terms are irreconcilable with the naturalistic worldview that most modern scientists might require. Some philosophers reject the meaning of the terms, claiming that as science progresses words like ‘love’ and ‘happiness’ will be replaced completely by language that is more descriptive of the material phenomena taking place. This paper attempts to defend these meaningful concepts in philosophy of mind without appealing to concepts a materialist could not accept. Introduction hilosophy engages the meaning of the word “love” in a myriad of complex discourses ranging from ancient musings on happiness, Pto modern work in the philosophy of mind. The eliminative and reductive forms of materialism threaten to reduce the importance of our everyday language and devalue the meaning we attach to words like “love,” in the name of scientific progress. Faced with this threat, some philosophers, such as Owen Flanagan, have attempted to defend meaningful words and concepts important to the contemporary philosopher, while simultaneously promoting widespread acceptance of materialism. While I believe that the available work is useful, I think * [email protected]. Received 1/2011, revised December 2011. © the author. Arché Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy, Volume V, Issue 1: Winter 2012. pp. 60-82 RECONCILING EROS AND NEUROSCIENCE 61 more needs to be said about the functional role of words like “love” in the script of progressing neuroscience, and further the important implications this yields for our current mode of practical reasoning.
    [Show full text]
  • Joan Y. Chiao
    JOAN Y. CHIAO Department of Psychology Northwestern University 2029 Sheridan Rd, Evanston, IL 60208 Email: [email protected] Phone: 847.467.0481 ACADEMIC POSITIONS 2006-present Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University Affiliated Faculty, Neuroscience Institute (NUIN) Affiliated Faculty, Cognitive Science Program Affiliated Faculty, Asian American Studies Program Affiliated Faculty, Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Center Affiliated Faculty, Multidisciplinary Program in Educational Science Affiliated Faculty, Technology and Social Behavior Program Faculty Associate, Institute for Policy Research EDUCATION Ph.D. Harvard University in Psychology, 2001-2006 B.S. Stanford University in Symbolic Systems with Honors, 1996-2000 RESEARCH INTERESTS • Social affective and cultural neuroscience • Race and its influence on perception, cognition and emotion • Psychological and neural mechanisms underlying social status and dominance • Integration of psychology and neuroscience research to public policy and population health issues HONORS, AWARDS and FELLOWSHIPS 2011 Association for Psychological Science Rising Star Award 2011 NIMH Early Career International Travel Award 2006-07 Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Research Fellow 2003-06 National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship 2005 John Merck Summer Institute: Biology of Developmental Disabilities Allport Travel Funds, Harvard George W. Goethals Teaching Prizes, Harvard Cognitive Neuroscience Society Graduate Student Presenter Award
    [Show full text]
  • Differentiating Neuroethics from Neurophilosophy
    Differentiating Neuroethics From Neurophilosophy A review of Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives in Neuroethics by James J. Giordano and Bert Gordijn (Eds.) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 388 pp. ISBN 978-0-521-70303-1. $50.00 Reviewed by Amir Raz Hillel Braude Neuroethics is about gaps: the gap between neuroscience and ethics, the one between science and philosophy, and, most of all, the “hard gap” between mind and brain. The hybrid term neuroethics, put into public circulation by the late William Safire (2002), attempts to address these lacunae through an emergent discipline that draws equally from neuroscience and philosophy. What, however, distinguishes neuroethics from its sister discipline—neurophilosophy? Contrary to traditional “armchair” philosophy, neurophilosophers such as Paul and Patricia Churchland argue that philosophy needs to take account of empirical neuroscience data regarding the mind–brain relation. Similarly, neuropsychologists and neuroscientists should be amenable to philosophical insights and the conceptual rigor of the philosophical method. Joshua Greene’s neuroimaging studies of participants making moral decisions provide a good example of this symbiotic relation between neuroscience and philosophy (Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001). A number of possible answers to the distinction between neuroethics and neurophilosophy emerge from Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives in Neuroethics, edited by James J. Giordano and Bert Gordijn. First, neuroethics emerges from the discipline of bioethics and, as such, specifically deals with ethical issues related to neuroscience. As Neil Levy says in his preface to the book, “Techniques and technologies stemming from the science of the mind raise . profound questions about what it means to be human, and pose greater challenges to moral thought” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Neuroscience of Mathematical Cognition and Learning
    CHAPTER 15 Systems Neuroscience of Mathematical Cognition and Learning: Basic Organization and Neural Sources of Heterogeneity in Typical and Atypical Development Teresa Iuculano, Aarthi Padmanabhan, Vinod Menon Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States OUTLINE Introduction 288 Ventral and Dorsal Visual Streams: Neural Building Blocks of Mathematical Cognition 292 Basic Organization 292 Heterogeneity in Typical and Atypical Development 295 Parietal-Frontal Systems: Short-Term and Working Memory 296 Basic Organization 296 Heterogeneity in Typical and Atypical Development 299 Lateral Frontotemporal Cortices: Language-Mediated Systems 302 Basic Organization 302 Heterogeneity in Typical and Atypical Development 302 Heterogeneity of Function in Numerical Cognition 287 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811529-9.00015-7 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 288 15. SYSTEMS NEUROSCIENCE OF MATHEMATICAL COGNITION AND LEARNING The Medial Temporal Lobe: Declarative Memory 306 Basic Organization 306 Heterogeneity in Typical and Atypical Development 306 The Circuit View: Attention and Control Processes and Dynamic Circuits Orchestrating Mathematical Learning 310 Basic Organization 310 Heterogeneity in Typical and Atypical Development 312 Plasticity in Multiple Brain Systems: Relation to Learning 314 Basic Organization 314 Heterogeneity in Typical and Atypical Development 315 Conclusions and Future Directions 320 References 324 INTRODUCTION Mathematical skill acquisition is hierarchical in nature, and each iteration of increased proficiency builds on knowledge of a lower-level primitive. For example, learning to solve arithmetical operations such as “3 + 4” requires first an understanding of what numbers mean and rep- resent (e.g., the symbol “3” refers to the quantity of three items, which derives from the ability to attend to discrete items in the environment).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Neuroscience and Psychopathology: Identifying the Relationship Between Neural Function, Social Cognition, and Social Beha
    Hooker, C.I. (2014). Social Neuroscience and Psychopathology, Chapter to appear in Social Neuroscience: Mind, Brain, and Society Social Neuroscience and Psychopathology: Identifying the relationship between neural function, social cognition, and social behavior Christine I. Hooker, Ph.D. ***************************** Learning Goals: 1. Identify main categories of social and emotional processing and primary neural regions supporting each process. 2. Identify main methodological challenges of research on the neural basis of social behavior in psychopathology and strategies for addressing these challenges. 3. Identify how research in the three social processes discussed in detail – social learning, self-regulation, and theory of mind – inform our understanding of psychopathology. Summary Points: 1. Several psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and autism, are characterized by social functioning deficits, but there are few interventions that effectively address social problems. 2. Treatment development is hindered by research challenges that limit knowledge about the neural systems that support social behavior, how those neural systems and associated social behaviors are compromised in psychopathology, and how the social environment influences neural function, social behavior, and symptoms of psychopathology. 3. These research challenges can be addressed by tailoring experimental design to optimize sensitivity of both neural and social measures as well as reduce confounds associated with psychopathology. 4. Investigations on the neural mechanisms of social learning, self-regulation, and Theory of Mind provide examples of methodological approaches that can inform our understanding of psychopathology. 5. High-levels of neuroticism, which is a vulnerability for anxiety disorders, is related to hypersensitivity of the amygdala during social fear learning. 6. High-levels of social anhedonia, which is a vulnerability for schizophrenia- spectrum disorders, is related to reduced lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) activity 1 Hooker, C.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael M. Merzenich
    Michael M. Merzenich BORN: Lebanon, Oregon May 15, 1942 EDUCATION: Public Schools, Lebanon, Oregon (1924–1935) University of Portland (Oregon), B.S. (1965) Johns Hopkins University, Ph.D. (1968) University of Wisconsin Postdoctoral Fellow (1968–1971) APPOINTMENTS: Assistant and Associate Professor, University of California at San Francisco (1971–1980) Francis A. Sooy Professor, University of California at San Francisco (1981–2008) President and CEO, Scientifi c Learning Corporation (1995–1996) Chief Scientifi c Offi cer, Scientifi c Learning Corporation (1996–2003) Chief Scientifi c Offi cer, Posit Science Corporation (2004–present) President and CEO, Brain Plasticity Institute (2008–present) HONORS AND AWARDS (SELECTED): Cortical Discoverer Prize, Cajal Club (1994) IPSEN Prize (Paris, 1997) Zotterman Prize (Stockholm, 1998) Craik Prize (Cambridge, 1998) National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. (1999) Lashley Award, American Philosophical Society (1999) Thomas Edison Prize (Menlo Park, NJ, 2000) American Psychological Society Distinguished Scientifi c Contribution Award (2001) Zülch Prize, Max-Planck Society (2002) Genius Award, Cure Autism Now (2002) Purkinje Medal, Czech Academy (2003) Neurotechnologist of the Year (2006) Institute of Medicine (2008) Michael M. Merzenich has conducted studies defi ning the functional organization of the auditory and somatosensory nervous systems. Initial models of a commercially successful cochlear implant (now distributed by Boston Scientifi c) were developed in his laboratory. Seminal research on cortical plasticity conducted in his laboratory contributed to our current understanding of the phenomenology of brain plasticity across the human lifetime. Merzenich extended this research into the commercial world by co-founding three brain plasticity-based therapeutic software companies (Scientifi c Learning, Posit Science, and Brain Plasticity Institute).
    [Show full text]
  • Psychologist Scope of Practice
    The Honorable Eileen Cody 303 John L. O’Brien Building Olympia, WA 98504 April 23, 2020 The Honorable John Wiesman Secretary of Health Washington State Department of Health P.O. Box 47890 Olympia, Washington 98504-7890 Dear Secretary Wiesman, I am requesting that the Department of Health consider a Sunrise Review application for a proposal that would change the scope of practice for psychologists, namely giving this profession prescriptive authority for those with appropriate training. A copy of the proposal is attached for HB 2967 (2020). The House Health Care & Wellness Committee would be interested in an assessment of whether the proposal meets the sunrise criteria for expanding the scope of practice for a regulated health profession in Washington. I appreciate your consideration of this application and I look forward to receiving your report. Please contact my office if you have any questions. Sincerely, Representative Eileen Cody, RN Chair, House Health Care & Wellness Committee 34th Legislative District Cc: Kelly Cooper, Washington State Department of Health Melanie Smith, Washington State Psychological Association Representative Nicole Macri, 43rd Legislative District H-3313.2 HOUSE BILL 2967 State of Washington 66th Legislature 2020 Regular Session By Representative Macri 1 AN ACT Relating to the prescriptive authority of psychologists; 2 amending RCW 18.83.010, 18.83.050, 18.83.080, and 18.83.090; 3 reenacting and amending RCW 18.64.011, 18.79.260, and 69.50.101; and adding new sections to chapter 18.83 RCW.4 5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 6 Sec. 1.
    [Show full text]