![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"Alice subconsciously believes Bob knows whats in her head because when she asks herself “What would Bob do?” she is trying to simulate Bob using her own mirror neurons which are connected to things she knows but Bob may not."
I have absolutely no idea what this paragraph is for, what the person who produced this paragon of deep thought was trying to say. WTF?
I've changed the explicit statement that macaque monkeys do not imitate others of their species in light of new evidence [1] Meehawl 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
References
There's something missing in the description of the grasp-to-eat vs grasp-to-place experiment. It says the neuron fires before the second part (eat/place) of the action happens. How does the monkey's brain know which it's going to be?
Ordinary causality considerations say that as described, the experiment neuron must not be related to eating or placing, since they happen after the neuron fires!
Bryan Henderson 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written. What is the policy regarding quality of writing vs. content?
The introduction and several other places imply that the principle function of these neurons is to do and by some auxiliary path they fire for observing too ("as though the observer itself were performing the action"). But I don't see anything to back that up. Maybe they're principally perception neurons and when the animal performs an action, it is essentially observing its own action ("as though the actor itself were observing the action"). Or, what seems more likely, the neurons represent the abstract action, and so naturally fire whether the animal either does or observes the action. If someone knows there's no reason to believe these are fundamentally self-action neurons, please fix the introduction.
Bryan Henderson 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the neurons probably represent the abstract action. But they are still needed for performing actions. If a person has a stroke damaging the inferior parietal lobule, they have difficulty performing and imitating skilled actions (Buxbaum LJ, Kyle KM, Menon R. On beyond mirror neurons: internal representations subserving imitation and recognition of skilled object-related actions in humans. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Sep;25(1):226-39) AFdeCH 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have reference to the existence of neurons that isn't from inference?
The section "The mirror neuron system in humans" initial states that existence is unknown, then proceeds on implying that they do indeed exist.
eet_1024 66.53.228.65 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone confirm that Luciano Fadiga was "the first to provide evidence that human beings have a system of mirror neurons analogous to system found in monkeys". [1] Google Scholar results indicate papers he has been involved in are well cited, but the claim of "first" is pretty bold. If he was the first, is it appropriate to mention him in this section of the article? John Vandenberg 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The article points out that human mirror neurons seem to be close to Broca's area, suggesting an involvement in the origins of language, possibly as part of some kind of shared gestural system.
It occurs to me that there is another possible route from mirror neuron to language. The logic of the mirror neuron mechanism seems to be some kind of limited 'represention of the other as oneself'. The logic of metaphor is also a 'representation of one thing as another'. It would be a neat evolutionary twist if a neurological generalization of the mirror neuron mechanism had been a trigger for the development of metaphor - or perhaps of some more general mechanism that subsumes metaphor such as Fauconnier and Turner's 'conceptual blending'. One could in principle test this by looking for metaphor-related neural mechanisms co-located with mirror neuron mechanisms.
Is this plausible neurologically?
JNTM 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Metaphorically... yes. Practically... when it comes to hard science you have to take baby steps, looing for the neural correlates of metaphores may be a few decades away; Athough they have been dubbed the empathy neuron by Ramachandran (phantom gonad). We are talking action recognition. As in, "the other as oneself." To borrow one of my collegues observations, its as if the human brain has somehow co-opted the action recognition portion of the brain, assigned a sound to the action, stored it, and produces it in reference to the verb. Like a metaphore, and although it's not exactly Whittman, it's still pretty cool. Niubrad 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states that mirror neurons: "are believed to exist in humans and in some birds." and that "The only animal where mirror neurons have been studied individually is the macaque monkey."
I think it may be interesting to point out this article which shows mirror neurons in swamp sparrows and shows electrical recordings from them: Precise auditory–vocal mirroring in neurons for learned vocal communication - Nature. 2008 Jan 17;451(7176):305-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico80 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There is exactly one study that reports MEG differences in males vs females. However, the sample (10/10) is extremely small, the variance high and the object, a male hand, dubious as to what reaction is provokes in women vs men. Note that there are numerous studies that don't report gender differences. I'd therefore suggest to rephrase the paragraph, as it contains a number of unwarranted assertions (as to empathy etc.). -- Simha ( talk) 09:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
What we know about mirror neurons is their cellular activity under certain circunstances. We do not know their product. Imitation is a behavior of one subject. The imitation syndrom of Lhermitte (1964) is due to lesions and probably correspond to the deshinhibition of a learned inhibition. I believe that it would be wise not passing to fast from one concept to the other.
-- Gerard.percheron 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would say that adult macaques don't imitate. It has been known for over 50 years, from the work of Imanishi and his colleagues with macaques on the Japanese island of Koshima, that macaques of all ages engage in imitation. Many species of birds, apes, and monkeys (and I would assume other sorts of animals as well) have been observed to engage in imitation. It is clearly not a uniquely human ability; it is an important survival mechanism for many species.
July191979 (
talk) 02:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This is getting to be a nice article. I have a question, though, about using the Dinstein article to support the statement, "to date no plausible neural or computational models have been put forward to describe how mirror neuron activity supports cognitive functions such as imitation". I haven't been able to spot where Dinstein et al discuss this, and the statement is at best misleading, since there are tons of computational models of mirror neuron activity in the literature. Of course "plausible" is in the eye of the beholder. looie496 ( talk) 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Marco Iacoboni, Itzhak Fried (neurosurgeon), and others at UCLA were able to perform tests on individual neurons in humans. Itzhak Fried performs surgery on epileptic patients to help relieve their seizures and such, and at times he would place individual electrodes with neurons. So, with the patient's permission, Marco Iacoboni and his team were able to study this.
-- Heero Kirashami ( talk) 04:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the quote from Rizzolatti comes from? All references I can find related to that quote on the Internet just say it's from wikipedia. When did he actually say that? - Bobet 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the paragraph you're referring to. I am a science writer and was working on an article on mirror neurons some two months ago, so I checked it with Rizzolatti (or maybe it was Ferrari, I should look it up in my e-mail). He denied that the finding was serendipitious and that the thing with the banana and the scanner ever happened. Hester van Santen 212.187.63.199 20:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Niubrad (
talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
--
Soon there will be a new paper in PNAS about this; see this and this. Might be useful in the In humans section. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 16:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
how about how this relates to free will? i read about this in Discover(sorry, don't have exact info handy...'08 issue with earth on cover; controversial "enviromental" issue...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 ( talk) 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
October 3, 2009. This is Lueder Deecke, Vienna, Neurologist. lueder.deecke@silverserver.at It is very unlikely that the tongue protrusion of the newborn macaque has something to do with mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are cortical, the neonate cortex is still immature, the myelinisation of cortical fibres is not yet completed. Newborns still have tectal vision, and the "imitation reflex" runs through the brain stem. It is, however, likely that this is an older imitation system, which is then refined by evolution by corticalizing it, which comes into play when the mirror system matures (in the human after 6 to 12 months of life). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.129.228.182 ( talk) 15:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the researchers accept the Mirror Neuron System paradigm in the monkeys although in the humans there are still some doubts (see section below). However there are some authors that discuss the mirror neuron evidence on the monkeys (Dinstein et al
[1], Hickok
[2], Pascolo & Budai (2008)Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). and Pascolo et al. (2009)Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).).
Dinstein et al. highlight that the theory is based on qualitative analysis rather than quantitative, e.g. because there were found very few neurons that fires selectively in the motor areas and the controversial about imitation in monkeys. Hickok underline the contradictions of the theory, such as it has not ever been reported that the interruption of the motor areas in F5 produce a decrement in action recognition. Hickok also reports that the mirror response can be just a facilitation of the motor system.
The article by Pascolo & BudaiCite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). highlight some doubts about even the existence of the mirror neurons in the monkeys (see also Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). for English version). This doubts are mainly based on time measurements on seminal works, such as firing delays. It has been found that the fires are not compatible with the standard reaction times, moreover the experimenters and the monkeys were not proximal-distal instrumented.
The paper criticise also the interpretation of the single neuron recordings. The recording of a single neuron out of billions in a complex network, with thousands of connections for each
neuron, cannot state exactly what the neuron is performing. Therefore the recordings response might suggest that it has been found a function that some neurons do in certain conditions and not a class of neurons, thus not the action understanding as claimed
[3].
This is the text I would like to add to the article. Does anyone know if there are any other authors that doubts or criticise the mirror neuron on monkeys?
Bioengineering lab (
talk) 09:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
References
Dinstein
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)
I would like to explain the difficulties I have with the newly added material on mirror neurons in monkeys. I will go through it, showing the problems -- my comments are in italics:
Doubts on mirror neurons Most of researchers accept the paradigm of Mirror Neuron System in monkeys, although there are still some doubts whether to accept it for humans (see section below). Recent studies have discussed the mirror neuron evidence also on monkeys.
An author argued that the seminal analysis is based on quality rather than quantity as it have been found that very few neurons fired selectively in the motor areas (ref Dinstein).
Moreover another author found that the measurements of neuron fire delay seem not to be compatible with standard reaction times (ref Rossi et al).
...and nobody ever reported that an interruption of the motor areas in F5 would produce a decrement in action recognition (ref Hickok et al).
Authors conclude that probably what it had been found is a function which some neurons do in certain conditions but not a specific class of neurons (ref Rossi et al),
...or that the response of the mirror system is just a facilitation for the motor system (ref Hickok et al).
Indeed there are controversial about imitation in monkeys (ref Dinstein et al).
In summary, except possibly for the Rossi et al source which I can't check, none of the sources seem to cast serious doubt on the existence of mirror neurons in monkeys, only on the theories that have been constructed about them. I think the section needs to be rewritten to make this clear. Do you agree with this? Looie496 ( talk) 18:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Either the 'Evidence against mirror neurons' section needs to be beefed up a bit...or a more substantial criticism section might help the POV of this article. There are quite of few prominent scientists that remain highly skeptical (e.g., Hickok G, 2008, Eight Problems for the Mirror Neuron Theory of Action Understanding in Monkeys and Humans, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience ,21:7, 1229–1243). Or even check out this clip from Morton Gernsbacher -- Agyoung2 ( talk) 02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The current issue of
Scientific American has two articles focusing on this topic. One of them states a theory that the basis of
autism is mirror-neuron deficit.
--
Jerzy•
t 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I am currently working in a lab that has just recieved funding to study mirror neurons in autism using fMRI, we postulate the same thing you read in Scientific American. Niubrad 01:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
And I work in another action understanding lab and we are very skeptical of the idea of a direct link between mirror neurons and autism. It is an appealing idea but the data simply is not strong enough yet.-- AFdeCH 15:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It's overdoing, how about reflex? you don't imitate what isn't worth.. i think that trail is more promising, interesting besides, if that changes macaque stemming neurologics. "the social cel", The archeological argument is not convincing, denying speech in early humans. It is more plausudible (eg.) a stable environmental concept operated until, an influence of moral or ethic character was the cause of major changes (rock-art), thriven by population factors(vertical population expanse). This decision/impact theory is plausible, at least historically, in the sense human societys have reacted diversely , and revolutionary when technological circumstances (firearms, agriculture) rooted their livelyhoods.Otoh., ofcourse its a highly functional and valuable cell-type 80.57.242.54 17:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think those who advocate a connection between mirror neurons and autism-spectrum disorders are saying that malfunctioning mirror neurons are solely responsible for ASDs. They're just saying they play a role, and have found, among other things, that there's a strong relationship between symptom severity and degree of activity deficits in mirror neuron systems in circumstances where they ought to be active. There's a good review article on research examining ASD/mirror neuron associations in Psychological Bulletin in March 2007.
July191979 (
talk) 02:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Without being insensitive, this section is bordering on OR and forum, so I created this wikiversity:Mirror Neurons and Autism page to accommodate it. (I am also posting this material there, as I find it relevant!) Having said that, I was an assistant teacher in an autism school for a period where I received two weeks of intensive training and even more intense experience--I was put into the lowest-functioning "home." AS is only one component of ASD. To have ASD, you have to have multiple disabilities from the autism "spectrum," which includes an NOS, or "wild card." Perhaps matrix is a better word to describe autism than spectrum because of the mass of possible interrelations between the specific component diseases. AS is not necessarily a component of ASD, though I suspect that the most difficult cases have AS. AS therefore is not low-functioning autism; it is AS!-- John Bessa ( talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the strongest section in the article, and as such is exceedingly "thick." The study described gives the best evidence for the cells, and contradicts speculation earlier in the article. I am thinking a synopsis of this study with its conclusions and a light description of its activity will prepare readers when they get to this section, and they may better enjoy the narrative.-- John Bessa ( talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
What does a mirror neuron look like? I think an expert illustration would would advance this article by factors. I am willing to create one, or transform several, but I am no neuro-expert and I need assistance accumulating material. I am a picture expert though, and have seen a page I recently worked on rise through Google SEO to the top.-- John Bessa ( talk) 17:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The language variety of this article has become a mess with both behavior and behaviour spellings used. As far as I can tell, the first substantial edit (which formed the basis of the article) was this edit by User:Maxgamer and clearly in British English. Following the principles of WP:ENGVAR (that the variety should be consistent and not changed from the original variety without good reason) I will standardise this spelling on BritEng. SpinningSpark 19:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mirror neuron. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"Alice subconsciously believes Bob knows whats in her head because when she asks herself “What would Bob do?” she is trying to simulate Bob using her own mirror neurons which are connected to things she knows but Bob may not."
I have absolutely no idea what this paragraph is for, what the person who produced this paragon of deep thought was trying to say. WTF?
I've changed the explicit statement that macaque monkeys do not imitate others of their species in light of new evidence [1] Meehawl 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
References
There's something missing in the description of the grasp-to-eat vs grasp-to-place experiment. It says the neuron fires before the second part (eat/place) of the action happens. How does the monkey's brain know which it's going to be?
Ordinary causality considerations say that as described, the experiment neuron must not be related to eating or placing, since they happen after the neuron fires!
Bryan Henderson 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written. What is the policy regarding quality of writing vs. content?
The introduction and several other places imply that the principle function of these neurons is to do and by some auxiliary path they fire for observing too ("as though the observer itself were performing the action"). But I don't see anything to back that up. Maybe they're principally perception neurons and when the animal performs an action, it is essentially observing its own action ("as though the actor itself were observing the action"). Or, what seems more likely, the neurons represent the abstract action, and so naturally fire whether the animal either does or observes the action. If someone knows there's no reason to believe these are fundamentally self-action neurons, please fix the introduction.
Bryan Henderson 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the neurons probably represent the abstract action. But they are still needed for performing actions. If a person has a stroke damaging the inferior parietal lobule, they have difficulty performing and imitating skilled actions (Buxbaum LJ, Kyle KM, Menon R. On beyond mirror neurons: internal representations subserving imitation and recognition of skilled object-related actions in humans. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Sep;25(1):226-39) AFdeCH 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have reference to the existence of neurons that isn't from inference?
The section "The mirror neuron system in humans" initial states that existence is unknown, then proceeds on implying that they do indeed exist.
eet_1024 66.53.228.65 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone confirm that Luciano Fadiga was "the first to provide evidence that human beings have a system of mirror neurons analogous to system found in monkeys". [1] Google Scholar results indicate papers he has been involved in are well cited, but the claim of "first" is pretty bold. If he was the first, is it appropriate to mention him in this section of the article? John Vandenberg 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The article points out that human mirror neurons seem to be close to Broca's area, suggesting an involvement in the origins of language, possibly as part of some kind of shared gestural system.
It occurs to me that there is another possible route from mirror neuron to language. The logic of the mirror neuron mechanism seems to be some kind of limited 'represention of the other as oneself'. The logic of metaphor is also a 'representation of one thing as another'. It would be a neat evolutionary twist if a neurological generalization of the mirror neuron mechanism had been a trigger for the development of metaphor - or perhaps of some more general mechanism that subsumes metaphor such as Fauconnier and Turner's 'conceptual blending'. One could in principle test this by looking for metaphor-related neural mechanisms co-located with mirror neuron mechanisms.
Is this plausible neurologically?
JNTM 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Metaphorically... yes. Practically... when it comes to hard science you have to take baby steps, looing for the neural correlates of metaphores may be a few decades away; Athough they have been dubbed the empathy neuron by Ramachandran (phantom gonad). We are talking action recognition. As in, "the other as oneself." To borrow one of my collegues observations, its as if the human brain has somehow co-opted the action recognition portion of the brain, assigned a sound to the action, stored it, and produces it in reference to the verb. Like a metaphore, and although it's not exactly Whittman, it's still pretty cool. Niubrad 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states that mirror neurons: "are believed to exist in humans and in some birds." and that "The only animal where mirror neurons have been studied individually is the macaque monkey."
I think it may be interesting to point out this article which shows mirror neurons in swamp sparrows and shows electrical recordings from them: Precise auditory–vocal mirroring in neurons for learned vocal communication - Nature. 2008 Jan 17;451(7176):305-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico80 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There is exactly one study that reports MEG differences in males vs females. However, the sample (10/10) is extremely small, the variance high and the object, a male hand, dubious as to what reaction is provokes in women vs men. Note that there are numerous studies that don't report gender differences. I'd therefore suggest to rephrase the paragraph, as it contains a number of unwarranted assertions (as to empathy etc.). -- Simha ( talk) 09:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
What we know about mirror neurons is their cellular activity under certain circunstances. We do not know their product. Imitation is a behavior of one subject. The imitation syndrom of Lhermitte (1964) is due to lesions and probably correspond to the deshinhibition of a learned inhibition. I believe that it would be wise not passing to fast from one concept to the other.
-- Gerard.percheron 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would say that adult macaques don't imitate. It has been known for over 50 years, from the work of Imanishi and his colleagues with macaques on the Japanese island of Koshima, that macaques of all ages engage in imitation. Many species of birds, apes, and monkeys (and I would assume other sorts of animals as well) have been observed to engage in imitation. It is clearly not a uniquely human ability; it is an important survival mechanism for many species.
July191979 (
talk) 02:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This is getting to be a nice article. I have a question, though, about using the Dinstein article to support the statement, "to date no plausible neural or computational models have been put forward to describe how mirror neuron activity supports cognitive functions such as imitation". I haven't been able to spot where Dinstein et al discuss this, and the statement is at best misleading, since there are tons of computational models of mirror neuron activity in the literature. Of course "plausible" is in the eye of the beholder. looie496 ( talk) 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Marco Iacoboni, Itzhak Fried (neurosurgeon), and others at UCLA were able to perform tests on individual neurons in humans. Itzhak Fried performs surgery on epileptic patients to help relieve their seizures and such, and at times he would place individual electrodes with neurons. So, with the patient's permission, Marco Iacoboni and his team were able to study this.
-- Heero Kirashami ( talk) 04:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the quote from Rizzolatti comes from? All references I can find related to that quote on the Internet just say it's from wikipedia. When did he actually say that? - Bobet 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the paragraph you're referring to. I am a science writer and was working on an article on mirror neurons some two months ago, so I checked it with Rizzolatti (or maybe it was Ferrari, I should look it up in my e-mail). He denied that the finding was serendipitious and that the thing with the banana and the scanner ever happened. Hester van Santen 212.187.63.199 20:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Niubrad (
talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
--
Soon there will be a new paper in PNAS about this; see this and this. Might be useful in the In humans section. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 16:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
how about how this relates to free will? i read about this in Discover(sorry, don't have exact info handy...'08 issue with earth on cover; controversial "enviromental" issue...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 ( talk) 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
October 3, 2009. This is Lueder Deecke, Vienna, Neurologist. lueder.deecke@silverserver.at It is very unlikely that the tongue protrusion of the newborn macaque has something to do with mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are cortical, the neonate cortex is still immature, the myelinisation of cortical fibres is not yet completed. Newborns still have tectal vision, and the "imitation reflex" runs through the brain stem. It is, however, likely that this is an older imitation system, which is then refined by evolution by corticalizing it, which comes into play when the mirror system matures (in the human after 6 to 12 months of life). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.129.228.182 ( talk) 15:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the researchers accept the Mirror Neuron System paradigm in the monkeys although in the humans there are still some doubts (see section below). However there are some authors that discuss the mirror neuron evidence on the monkeys (Dinstein et al
[1], Hickok
[2], Pascolo & Budai (2008)Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). and Pascolo et al. (2009)Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).).
Dinstein et al. highlight that the theory is based on qualitative analysis rather than quantitative, e.g. because there were found very few neurons that fires selectively in the motor areas and the controversial about imitation in monkeys. Hickok underline the contradictions of the theory, such as it has not ever been reported that the interruption of the motor areas in F5 produce a decrement in action recognition. Hickok also reports that the mirror response can be just a facilitation of the motor system.
The article by Pascolo & BudaiCite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). highlight some doubts about even the existence of the mirror neurons in the monkeys (see also Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). for English version). This doubts are mainly based on time measurements on seminal works, such as firing delays. It has been found that the fires are not compatible with the standard reaction times, moreover the experimenters and the monkeys were not proximal-distal instrumented.
The paper criticise also the interpretation of the single neuron recordings. The recording of a single neuron out of billions in a complex network, with thousands of connections for each
neuron, cannot state exactly what the neuron is performing. Therefore the recordings response might suggest that it has been found a function that some neurons do in certain conditions and not a class of neurons, thus not the action understanding as claimed
[3].
This is the text I would like to add to the article. Does anyone know if there are any other authors that doubts or criticise the mirror neuron on monkeys?
Bioengineering lab (
talk) 09:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
References
Dinstein
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)
I would like to explain the difficulties I have with the newly added material on mirror neurons in monkeys. I will go through it, showing the problems -- my comments are in italics:
Doubts on mirror neurons Most of researchers accept the paradigm of Mirror Neuron System in monkeys, although there are still some doubts whether to accept it for humans (see section below). Recent studies have discussed the mirror neuron evidence also on monkeys.
An author argued that the seminal analysis is based on quality rather than quantity as it have been found that very few neurons fired selectively in the motor areas (ref Dinstein).
Moreover another author found that the measurements of neuron fire delay seem not to be compatible with standard reaction times (ref Rossi et al).
...and nobody ever reported that an interruption of the motor areas in F5 would produce a decrement in action recognition (ref Hickok et al).
Authors conclude that probably what it had been found is a function which some neurons do in certain conditions but not a specific class of neurons (ref Rossi et al),
...or that the response of the mirror system is just a facilitation for the motor system (ref Hickok et al).
Indeed there are controversial about imitation in monkeys (ref Dinstein et al).
In summary, except possibly for the Rossi et al source which I can't check, none of the sources seem to cast serious doubt on the existence of mirror neurons in monkeys, only on the theories that have been constructed about them. I think the section needs to be rewritten to make this clear. Do you agree with this? Looie496 ( talk) 18:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Either the 'Evidence against mirror neurons' section needs to be beefed up a bit...or a more substantial criticism section might help the POV of this article. There are quite of few prominent scientists that remain highly skeptical (e.g., Hickok G, 2008, Eight Problems for the Mirror Neuron Theory of Action Understanding in Monkeys and Humans, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience ,21:7, 1229–1243). Or even check out this clip from Morton Gernsbacher -- Agyoung2 ( talk) 02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The current issue of
Scientific American has two articles focusing on this topic. One of them states a theory that the basis of
autism is mirror-neuron deficit.
--
Jerzy•
t 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I am currently working in a lab that has just recieved funding to study mirror neurons in autism using fMRI, we postulate the same thing you read in Scientific American. Niubrad 01:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
And I work in another action understanding lab and we are very skeptical of the idea of a direct link between mirror neurons and autism. It is an appealing idea but the data simply is not strong enough yet.-- AFdeCH 15:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It's overdoing, how about reflex? you don't imitate what isn't worth.. i think that trail is more promising, interesting besides, if that changes macaque stemming neurologics. "the social cel", The archeological argument is not convincing, denying speech in early humans. It is more plausudible (eg.) a stable environmental concept operated until, an influence of moral or ethic character was the cause of major changes (rock-art), thriven by population factors(vertical population expanse). This decision/impact theory is plausible, at least historically, in the sense human societys have reacted diversely , and revolutionary when technological circumstances (firearms, agriculture) rooted their livelyhoods.Otoh., ofcourse its a highly functional and valuable cell-type 80.57.242.54 17:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think those who advocate a connection between mirror neurons and autism-spectrum disorders are saying that malfunctioning mirror neurons are solely responsible for ASDs. They're just saying they play a role, and have found, among other things, that there's a strong relationship between symptom severity and degree of activity deficits in mirror neuron systems in circumstances where they ought to be active. There's a good review article on research examining ASD/mirror neuron associations in Psychological Bulletin in March 2007.
July191979 (
talk) 02:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Without being insensitive, this section is bordering on OR and forum, so I created this wikiversity:Mirror Neurons and Autism page to accommodate it. (I am also posting this material there, as I find it relevant!) Having said that, I was an assistant teacher in an autism school for a period where I received two weeks of intensive training and even more intense experience--I was put into the lowest-functioning "home." AS is only one component of ASD. To have ASD, you have to have multiple disabilities from the autism "spectrum," which includes an NOS, or "wild card." Perhaps matrix is a better word to describe autism than spectrum because of the mass of possible interrelations between the specific component diseases. AS is not necessarily a component of ASD, though I suspect that the most difficult cases have AS. AS therefore is not low-functioning autism; it is AS!-- John Bessa ( talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the strongest section in the article, and as such is exceedingly "thick." The study described gives the best evidence for the cells, and contradicts speculation earlier in the article. I am thinking a synopsis of this study with its conclusions and a light description of its activity will prepare readers when they get to this section, and they may better enjoy the narrative.-- John Bessa ( talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
What does a mirror neuron look like? I think an expert illustration would would advance this article by factors. I am willing to create one, or transform several, but I am no neuro-expert and I need assistance accumulating material. I am a picture expert though, and have seen a page I recently worked on rise through Google SEO to the top.-- John Bessa ( talk) 17:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The language variety of this article has become a mess with both behavior and behaviour spellings used. As far as I can tell, the first substantial edit (which formed the basis of the article) was this edit by User:Maxgamer and clearly in British English. Following the principles of WP:ENGVAR (that the variety should be consistent and not changed from the original variety without good reason) I will standardise this spelling on BritEng. SpinningSpark 19:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mirror neuron. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)