Well said. Here's a quote from Henson (2005) ...

2011-10-11T00:04:54.540-07:00

Well said.

Here's a quote from Henson (2005) paper from his EPS prizewinning lecture, concerning the "structure-to-function induction":

"if condition C2 elicits responses
in brain region R1 relative to some baseline condition C0, and region R1 has been associated
with function F1 in a different context (e.g., in comparison of condition C1 versus C0 in a
previous experiment), then function F1 is also implicated in condition C2"

This seems to license exactly reverse inference that is currently getting (a similar group of) people so hot under the collar.

I complained about this (and much else) in my companion paper (Page, M, Cortex, 2006, http://bit.ly/iUt23i). As far as I remember, nobody wrote to the New York Times to agree.

Quite right about mirror neurons too.

Mike.

Thanks for the mention, and for another expert tak...

2011-10-10T20:15:53.195-07:00

Thanks for the mention, and for another expert take-down of mirror neurons. While there wasn't a Letter to the Editor in the NYT after Blakeslee's Jan 10, 2006 article, there was some critical blog activity around that time, way before Russ and Tal had blogs. My own blog started in late January 2006, and one of my early posts was a link to Mind Hacks, where Vaughan Bell did a superb job of debunking the ridiculous exercise in publicity and hype known as "the Super Bowl Brain Scans":

Super Bowl brain scans with added hype
. . .
Cardinal sins:

1) Not giving the comparison conditions and experimental design. This makes the reported results essentially meaningless.

2) Interpreting brain activity in certain areas to mean a certain response from viewers, even when they actually report something else.

"female subjects may give verbally very low ‘grades’ to ads using actresses in sexy roles, but their mirror neuron areas seem to fire up quite a bit, suggesting some form of identification and empathy."

Mirror neurons tend to fire when anyone else’s actions are viewed, there is no evidence that approval or liking of the person doing the actions has any bearing on the response.

3) Assuming activation in the ‘mirror system’ equals empathy.
. . .

You can also look through the archives of Mixing Memory for early mirror neuron critiques. Here's a quote from a classic, on Mirror Neurons, Language, and Meaning (Oh, My!):

"There are a few topics in cognitive science that are like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. I find the very mention of them irritating, and the irritation can stick in my craw for days. At or near the top of that list are mirror neurons. These little cells have been made so sexy, either by their sheer coolness or massive, overblown publicity (it's hard to tell which), that they seem to have become the solution to virtually every problem in the study of cognition and behavior in the minds of some researchers."

Finally, I have long ago ceded my crown as king of the mirror neuron critics to you but there are 37 unique posts in The Neurocritic archive. An old favorite from July 2006 is Spindle Neurons: The Next New Thing?

But all this blogging pales in comparison to the published literature, where there are at least 6 papers critical of mirror neurons by Hickok. Keep 'em coming!

Comments on Talking Brains: Do we love our iPhones literally? I really don't ...

Well said. Here's a quote from Henson (2005) ...

Thanks for the mention, and for another expert tak...