tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post265914625695073525..comments2023-10-12T00:25:24.119-07:00Comments on Talking Brains: Mirror neurons do not have the right response properties to support action understandingGreg Hickokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16656473495682901613noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-77638816964934482012015-11-02T08:30:25.153-08:002015-11-02T08:30:25.153-08:00Two comments/questions:
1. I find it noteworthy t...Two comments/questions:<br /><br />1. I find it noteworthy that the early mirror neuron studies are purely descriptive if I understand it correctly. I am not an expert of single cell recordings, so I am wondering: on which basis do the researchers decide whether a neuron belongs to one category or another, i.e., significantly fires more in one condition vs. another. Later MN studies run statistics on the firing rates (and also other older studies, e.g. Perrett et al., 1989, do so), but to my knowledge there is no study that statistically corroborated the early basic studies that characterized mirror neurons. Wouldn't this be important? In particular when we talk about 3 out of 92 neurons. <br /><br />2. It is claimed that MNs encode actions with a higher degree of generality than STS neurons. I find it difficult to compare the results of MN studies with those of STS studies, e.g. by Perrett et al., because they used different actions, different experimental designs, etc. To my knowledge there is no study that directly compared the generalization capacities of MNs and STS neurons. Wouldn't Rizzolatti et al. need such a study before making claims about generality differences between MNs and STS neurons?<br /><br />Such a study could satisfy both of my objections. Optimally, one could set it up in such a way that it tests opposing theories (something that is rarely (never?) done by Rizzolatti and coworkers). Such a study should be conducted by researchers from both camps to ensure that each side is happy with the design and would be convinced by counter-evidence (and to control the effect of the experimenter). <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703225066158440799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-41827876650016086582015-10-30T15:03:05.814-07:002015-10-30T15:03:05.814-07:00Ten years ago I participated in a web conference o...Ten years ago I participated in a web conference on mirror neurons at interdiscliplines.org. My contribution also discussed the inherent uncertainty of the evidence for mirror properties of these neurons. Sadly, the web site is no longer available, but you can find my short contribution <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B23L9qxWc50-MXhROXpjQU9QZG8" rel="nofollow">here</a> (Section 3 is relevant to this point).<br /><br />Gergely Csibra<br />Gergely Csibrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021837205114724691noreply@blogger.com