Subject: Re: 40 Hz RIP From: DeLiang Wang <dwang(at)CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 11:40:54 -0400Neil, > It doesn't matter what kind of fancy oscillators you have, my > point was how you arrange them in relation to the signal. So neurons generating spikes are "fancy". I guess then models would have to be "fancy" too. > In fact Deliang, the information about the various kinds of eye > movements required to avoid image adaptation was taken directly > ... The vision community is a better place to voice your complaints, as I said earlier. > Certainly, Gray and Singer have! I meant how many experimentalists have looked for oscillations in the auditory system (not the literature). > As I also said, in fact I have no problem with the notion of > temporal correlation. Then why do you attack oscillations so vehmently? > As I also said, the general architecture of this model is not > dissimilar to some "neural oscillator" models, including your > own, but there is a fundamental difference in that it is based > on the strong evidence that the brain represents its inputs in > the form of multi-scale decompositions. If you have problem about a specific point in a specific paper, please communicate directly with the concerned people instead of broadcasting it to the whole list. Also papers already published are in the literature, and there you can make extensive arguments and people can make up their minds by reading them (in a whole, not distorted). No point to repeat the arguments in the list. Please be bandwidth-conscious. > DeLiang, I would be extremely upset if you gave up on "neural > oscillators" - it would ruin my fun. Sorry Neil, whether you have fun or not does not play much a role in my work. Cheers, DeLiang