SCI199Y: Computational Reality, Illusion and Deception

Assignment 5: Neuroscience

Due: 11:59pm Monday 14 February 2011

I have often stated that not only do we sense the world, we also make sense of the world. In this assignment, you will be reading, summarising and discussing two remarkable findings that have recently appeared in the neuroscience literature that may or may not support that statement. They will be quite challenging--and I think rewarding--to read (see below for tips on reading scientific papers). The first paper is on the discovery of "mirror neurons" and the other is on "phantom limbs".

Your tasks for each paper are:

  • To read the paper and briefly summarise the results of the paper as claimed by the authors (around 500 words for each).
  • To answer the following questions:
    1. Do you believe the results support the idea that the brain tries to "make sense" of the world? If so, discuss the particular aspect(s) of our "making sense of the world" that the paper addresses. If not, explain why not, and suggest alternative structures or functions in the brain you think it should have to support making sense of the world.
    2. For the "phantom limbs" paper, discuss what it has to say about the self-image we maintain of our own bodies. For the "mirror neurons" paper, what in your opinion are some of implications of mirror neurons regarding how we try to gain an understanding of the actions of others?
    3. What do you think of the paper? Do the results of the paper surprise you in any way? Are there any gaps in their explanation? What related questions should these researchers be looking at in the future? Discuss.
    Overall, around five pages per paper should in principle cover these tasks.

    As I mentioned above, these papers will be challenging to read, not really for the style of writing as much as that they contain a considerable amount of technical material, not all of which is relevant to our lines of enquiry. Welcome to the world of scholarship! Deciding what is relevant isn't always easy.

    A scientific paper usually must be read iteratively and often nonlinearly. On first or second reading, much of the specific technical detail is often not crucial to getting an overall impression of the scope and results of the work. With subsequent readings, note taking, looking at the citations, etc., the full extent of the thinking in the paper will be revealed. Experts in an area who are familiar with the specific research may be able to get away with fewer iterations, but most substantial papers require several days, if not weeks, of work to appreciate fully.

    That is not our goal here. I am not trying to turn you into a neuroscientist! The goal is to gain an appreciation of some of the structural aspects of the brain that may (or may not) contribute to how we make sense of the world. As such, you will find that you can skim much of the experimental design and focus instead on the results, claims and discussion. The "phantom limbs" paper has some extraordinarily fascinating discussion in the last third of the paper. When I read a scientific paper outside my area, I usually start by reading the abstract, introduction and conclusion first. I then read through the paper, looking for statements of findings, areas of discussion, and interpretation of the findings. I try to understand what those things mean first. Then I look at how they go about establishing those findings. Sometimes, the authors send you elsewhere for other places where the results have been established. It is often helpful to read a paper in parallel with other supporting or related work. For example, a co-author of the "phantom limbs" paper actually has a very interesting essay on the "mirror neurons" paper! You are welcome to consult other works to further your understanding, but cite them in your report.