Hi Will, Such an interesting example in light of a recent paper, which deals with measuring the difference between activation of the visual cortex and blood flow to the area, depending on whether the stimulus was "subjectively invisible". If the result can be trusted, it shows that blood flow to the cortex is correlated with whether the stimulus is being perceived or not, as opposed to the neural activity, which does not change... see a discussion here:
http://network.nature.com/groups/bpcc/forum/topics/2974 In this case then the "reward" that the cortex receives in the form of nutrients is based somehow on feedback from other parts of the brain involved with attention. It's like a heuristic that says, "if we're paying attention to something, we're probably going to keep paying attention to it." Maier A, Wilke M, Aura C, Zhu C, Ye FQ, Leopold DA. Nat Neurosci. 2008 Aug 24. [Epub ahead of print], Divergence of fMRI and neural signals in V1 during perceptual suppression in the awake monkey. --- On Tue, 9/16/08, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However despite it being nothing to do with bayesian > reasoning or > rational decision making, if we didn't have a good way > of allocating > blood flow in our brains we really couldn't do very > much of use at all > (as blood would be directed to the wrong parts at the wrong > times). ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
