I) ok. impairments in: a) left Heschl’s gyrus, b) right supramarginal gyrus, and c) left superior frontal gyrus. ————– so what are they good for? ——————- a) left Heschl’s gyrus: That’s the auditory cortex on the left side. Left ear deaf, so that area would not function. No cause effect here but a pairing. With one working, the other won’t either. b) Right SMG: “The right-hemisphere supramarginal gyrus appears to play a central role in controlling empathy towards other people. When this structure isn’t working properly or when having to make very quick judgements, empathy becomes severely limited.” also: _Right Supramarginal Gyrus Is Crucial to Overcome Emotional Egocentricity Bias in Social Judgments_ Oh my! So _possibly_) in a stressful moment / panic moment, I may neglect the needs of another – and linked to left ear deafness. Fascinating if so. I know if there’s a split second decision I may very well “drop the ball” – not intentionally but because there’s not a “there” there sometimes until afterwards – and this partially confirms/gives some credence to this intuition of myself. That is, I don’t like it but I know it’s not something that I can wish away but instead work around. c) left superior frontal gyrus “(i) the lateral and posterior portion of the left SFG is a key component of the neural network of WM; (ii) the participation of this region in WM is triggered by the highest level of executive processing; (iii) the left SFG is also involved in spatially oriented processing” Ok, so crucial in complex tasks – the worse it functions, the worse complex tasks are handled in working memory -BUT- executive (willpower as it were I guess) can overcome its malfunction if needed.

I)
ok. impairments in:… [read full article]

 

“age watershed” looking up fissure stuff as it seemed a HUGE difference between 28w and 33w in fissure size; looks like I was right: the difference between 28 and 29 weeks is a huge difference; curved branches show up at 29 weeks where there’s none at 28. _Brain structure development of very pre-term infants on serial cranial ultrasound_ “In infants born at GAs of 27 to 28 weeks, the lateral fissure exhibited wide gaps with short branches. Deep inside the cerebral parenchyma, a few shallow sulci appeared perpendicular to the cerebral longitudinal fissure. No obvious cerebral sulcus structures were present in the shallow layer of the cerebral parenchyma. The cingulate gyrus was well developed with few branches in the sulcus. In infants born at a GA of 28 weeks, the parieto-occipital sulcus exhibited short linear echoes in the shallow layer of the parenchyma. In infants born at a GA of 29 weeks, the cingulate sulcus exhibited multiple curved branches that extended into the cerebral parenchyma. The boundary of the cingulate gyrus was essentially formed, and gaps between the lateral fissures narrowed and branched. Numerous cerebral sulci with short line-like echoes appeared next to the longitudinal fissure and the shallow layer of the cerebral parenchyma. The brain development of infants born at a GA of 29 weeks was more mature than that of pre-term infants born at a GA <28 weeks.” “In infants born at GA of 25 to 28 weeks, the cerebral parenchyma in the cerebellar hemisphere was smooth. However, the boundary between the cortex and medulla was unclear. Few sulci were present in the cortex, and the vermis had a visible but loose texture. In infants born at a GA of 29 weeks, the cerebellar hemisphere exhibited short, line-like shallow sulci, and the vermis was longer than that in infants born before a GA of 28 weeks.” In conclusion, cerebral and cerebellar structures develop in very pre-term infants (GA ≤29 weeks), and cerebellar measurements changed as the GA increased. The brain development of infants born at a GA of 29 weeks was significantly more mature than that of pre-term infants born at a GA <28 weeks. This difference indicates an age watershed between the two groups of infants. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7004605/

“age watershed”
looking up
[read full article]
 

30 weeks? But I was 28 weeks. Did I miss out on the “Rich Club Organization” and have to reroute things my own way? Rich-club organization of the newborn human brain “Combining diffusion magnetic resonance imaging and network analysis in the adult human brain has identified a set of highly connected cortical hubs that form a “rich club”—a high-cost, high-capacity backbone thought to enable efficient network communication. Rich-club architecture appears to be a persistent feature of the mature mammalian brain, but it is not known when this structure emerges during human development. In this longitudinal study we chart the emergence of structural organization in mid to late gestation. We demonstrate that a rich club of interconnected cortical hubs is already present by 30 wk gestation. Subsequently, until the time of normal birth, the principal development is a proliferation of connections between core hubs and the rest of the brain. We also consider the impact of environmental factors on early network development, and compare term-born neonates to preterm infants at term-equivalent age. Though rich-club organization remains intact following premature birth, we reveal significant disruptions in both in cortical–subcortical connectivity and short-distance corticocortical connections. Rich club organization is present well before the normal time of birth and may provide the fundamental structural architecture for the subsequent emergence of complex neurological functions. Premature exposure to the extrauterine environment is associated with altered network architecture and reduced network capacity, which may in part account for the high prevalence of cognitive problems in preterm infants.” https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1324118111

30 weeks? But I
[read full article]
 

hang on: so IMPROVISATION of melody results from DEACTIVATION of the rTPJ ? For context: rTPJ: “The right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ) is frequently associated with different capacities that to shift attention to unexpected stimuli (reorienting of attention) and to understand others’ (false) mental state [theory of mind (ToM), typically represented by false belief tasks]” —- “While we had hypothesized that differences would likely be found in the frontal regions involved in generation and selection of novel motor sequences (e.g., inferior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex, dorsal premotor cortex), we did not predict that the main difference would be in degree of deactivation of a parietal region, nor that the difference would be for melodic improvisation but not rhythmic improvisation, nor that the frontal areas listed above would show no differences between groups. In what follows, after reviewing relevant literature on the purported role of the rTPJ and its deactivation in various cognitive tasks, we propose an explanation for the relevance of expertise-related deactivation of this region during improvisation. We then discuss possible explanations for the lack of group differences during rhythmic improvisation and in the frontal areas seen in our previous study of musicians alone. The rTPJ is thought to be part of a ventral attentional network for bottom-up stimulus-driven processing (for reviews, see Corbetta and Shulman, 2002; Corbetta et al., 2008). Brain imaging results have supported the hypothesis that this region is important for reorienting attention when behaviorally relevant stimuli in any sensory modality are detected (Downar et al., 2000, 2001, and 2002; Kincade et al., 2005; Serences et al., 2005; Corbetta and Shulman, 2002; Corbetta et al., 2008). Deactivation of this region has been postulated to occur in response to top-down signals during goal-driven behavior so as to inhibit attentional shifts toward task-irrelevant stimuli that could cause decrements in performance (Shulman et al., 2003; Todd et al., 2005; for a review, see Corbetta et al., 2008). These top-down signals are thought to serve a filtering function, allowing only taskrelevant stimuli to activate the rTPJ, and preventing a reorienting to task-irrelevant stimuli (Corbetta et al., 2008). In support of such theories of rTPJ function, increasing deactivation of this region has been found to correlate with more successful task performance in target detection (Shulman et al., 2007) and visual short-term memory (Chee and Chuah, 2007), as well as faster reaction times when processing large numbers of objects as opposed to smaller numbers (Ansari et al., 2007). Although deactivation of the rTPJ has been correlated with improved task performance in these contexts, the deactivation of this region as a function of expertise revealed in the present paper is, to our knowledge, a novel finding. The deactivation of the rTPJ cannot be critical for the invention of novel motor sequences: despite a lack of deactivation in this region, nonmusicians achieved a level of novelty in melodic improvisation equivalent to that of the musician group, as evidenced by the lack of difference between the two groups in the percent of unique melodic sequences generated during the melodic improvisation conditions. In light of the prior work on the rTPJ reviewed above, we propose two related (and not mutually exclusive) possibilities for why musicians would demonstrate substantial deactivation of this region during improvisation while nonmusicians do not show any significant change in activity: training-induced changes in goal-directed attention and/or shifts toward a more topdown cognitive strategy. When improvising, musicians are in a goal-driven state of invention, and, at least in the case of our experiment, the pursuit of novelty. It is thus important for their attention not to be distracted by irrelevant stimuli (e.g., in this experiment, scanner noise, errors in intended performance, etc.). The deactivation of the rTPJ region in experienced musicians suggests that their expertise may allow them to enter a more focused attentional state during performance of this task. Moreover, while the deactivations in the rTPJ in the musician group were statistically significant only for conditions involving melodic improvisation, visual inspection of Fig. 2 shows that a trend toward deactivation is seen even with rhythmic improvisation alone (Patterns/Rhythmic Improvisation) and to a lesser degree, with no improvisation at all (Patterns/Metronome). This suggests that musicians are entering a different state of attentional focus than nonmusicians as soon as they engage in even the simple act of playing, and that this effect is particularly heightened during melodic improvisation. Widespread deactivations during the performance of a previously memorized piece of music have been theorized to play a similar role in that context (Parsons et al., 2005). Sustained attention is indeed thought to be a critical cognitive process for creativity (Dietrich, 2004). Thus, one interpretation of the present finding is that musicians may have been more focused and/or goal driven in their task performance, whereas nonmusicians, because of lack of experience, may have been less so. Beyond the general possibility of a more focused goal-driven attentional state, a more specific potential interpretation of the musicians’ deactivation of the rTPJ during improvisation is that they strategized in a more top-down fashion, conceiving of and/or planning their improvised melodies as 5-note groups, and thus inhibiting any sort of stimulus-driven response to what they played while they planned their next improvised sequence. Nonmusicians, lacking musical experience, may have been more dependent on stimulus-driven information (i.e., auditory and sensory feedback) during melodic improvisation. This is consistent with the proposal of a recent fMRI study in which musicians’ and nonmusicians’ brain activity were compared during tasks of rhythmic synchronization, showing overlapping but distinct neural substrates between the two groups (Chen et al., 2008). These authors postulate a model in which musicians use a top-down strategy based on their prior knowledge of musical structure, whereas nonmusicians, without such knowledge, are relegated to bottom-up processing. Our results may indicate a similar training-induced shift toward a top-down processing strategy in improvisation. Such a strategy has also been described in a recent EEG study of the imagery of improvised dance in professionals versus novices (Fink et al., 2009b). In this study, increased alpha synchronization in right temporoparietal and parietooccipital areas in professional dancers as compared to novices was revealed, which the authors interpreted as reflecting top-down inhibition to prevent interference from task-irrelevant information during creative thinking. Top-down inhibition of stimulus-driven attention is also thought to correlate with novel idea generation during creative problem solving in the verbal domain (Fink et al., 2009a). Thus, such top-down inhibition may be an important component of creative thought across domains from Expertise-related deactivation of the right temporoparietal junction during musical improvisation

hang on: so IMPROVISATION
[read full article]
 

Love your answer and I am in agreement. I am a willing participant in microtargeting however; go ahead and try to sell to me – it is a dare. But I game the system frequently; I’ll click always on one particular type of item until all of my ads are somehow related to what they guess this means about me. While I do use my regular name online, it is still a persona – and not a person – this is my marketed-to persona; and I’m ok with having a marketed-to profile [or several really] because I was raised with this as an inescapable reality; from mailing lists as a kid to its more expansive version we see today. I love AI and it is fun to challenge it. But beyond all of that, I’m an ancient netizen, on since the age of 17 in 1989 and fell instantly in love and advocated for everybody to get on. I didn’t want the corporate world to get on too but I should’ve known. They’re regrettable but I suppose the free-for-all world of pre-1993 was bound to end.

 Love your answer and
[read full article]
 

[warning: Clickbait title of the video: The answer is: “probably not”. He goes into great detail about that I think; watching now] I found this nice answer on Quora: Is it possible to simulate all of the laws of physics on a computer? So a few months ago I would have said yes, but since then I have been to an online seminar given by Prof David Tong where he argued to the contrary. I would like to emphasise, David Tong is a Professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge, and has made a huge number of contributions to theoretical physics especially regarding Quantum Field Theory. In other words, he is a very good source! He had two main arguments: – The numerical sign problem – In short you can describe quantum mechanics in terms of something called path integrals, and there are significant problems with recreating these on a computer. – Chiral Fermions (This is actually the main topic of the talk) – You say in your question give a “certain level of granularity”, you’re correct that this seems a natural suggesting if you want simulate the universe. However it turns out that there is something called Chrial fermions in our universe, and there are significant problems with putting these on this kind of lattice structure. I have found a version of the same talk David gave elsewhere. He discusses both of the above in much more detail than I can give here (Only the first ~15 mins will probably be of interest to you, it turns quite technical after that): https://youtu.be/QPMn7SuiHP8

[warning: Clickbait title of
[read full article]