tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post5134112962205735998..comments2023-10-12T00:25:24.119-07:00Comments on Talking Brains: Semantics and Brain - 2nd meetingGreg Hickokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16656473495682901613noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-19917730657212610722008-01-15T11:43:00.000-08:002008-01-15T11:43:00.000-08:00"Hub" is definitely in vogue, for better or for wo..."Hub" is definitely in vogue, for better or for worse, but I never thought of "hub" as the new "store/buffer" because buffers where/are temporary storage mechanisms and hubs are regions of integration or binding. But I suppose your point is that folks are thinking less in terms of buffers and more in terms of binding to talk about the same sorts of processes. <BR/><BR/>They do explicitly address Damasio's notion of convergence zone and acknowledge that the mechanism (i.e., binding/integration) is the same a a hub, but with one difference: convergence zones are more local, binding specific bits of information sometimes within modalities, sometimes across, and there are lots of them, whereas their semantic hub is a super-convergence zone binding everything relevant to semantic memory (as it is typically studied).Greg Hickokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16656473495682901613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-30095499829555614712008-01-15T09:27:00.000-08:002008-01-15T09:27:00.000-08:00"hub" is the new "store". Cognitive psychologists ..."hub" is the new "store". Cognitive psychologists loved to call their boxes in information processing models "stores" or "buffers". I see a recent trend in cognitive neuroscience to call one's pet brain area a "hub". The ATL? It's a hub. <BR/><BR/>I wonder whether a hub is akin to Damasio's notion of a "convergence zone", or whether the ideas are unrelated?Brad Buchsbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10757537675625801119noreply@blogger.com