home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Scientific American: Illusion
/
Scientific American - Illusion.ISO
/
pc
/
illusion
/
hub_fie.cxt
/
00254_Field_frep70.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-12-30
|
4KB
|
124 lines
The alternative is to suppose
that a given object leads to the
firing of a particular
constellation of cells, any
member of which could also
belong to other constellations.
Knowing as we do that
destroying a small region of
brain does not generally destroy
specific memories, we have to
suppose that the cells in a
constellation are not localized
to a single cortical area, but
extend over many areas.
Grandmother sewing then
becomes a bigger constellation
comprising grandmother-by-
definition, grandmother's face,
and sewing.
It is admittedly not easy to
think of a way to get at such
ideas experimentally. To record
from one cell alone and make
sense of the results even in the
striate cortex is not easy: it is
hard even to imagine coming to
terms with a cell that may be a
member of a hundred
constellations, each consisting
of a thousand cells. Having
tried to record from three cells
simultaneously and understand
what they all are doing in the
animal's daily life, I can only
admire the efforts of those who
hope to build electrode arrays to
record simultaneously from
hundreds. But by now we should
be used to seeing problems
solved that only yesterday
seemed insuperable.
Running counter to wooly
ideas about constellations of
cells is long-standing and still
accumulating evidence for the
existence of cortical regions
specialized for face perception.
Charles Gross's group at
Princeton has recorded from
cells in the monkey, in a visual
area of the temporal lobe, that
seem to respond selectively to
faces. And humans with strokes
in one particular part of the
inferior occipital lobe often
lose the ability to recognize
faces, even those of close
relatives. Antonio Damasio, at
the University of Iowa, has
suggested that these patients
have lost the ability to
distinguish not just faces but a
broader class of objects that
includes faces. He describes a
woman who could recognize
neither faces nor individual
cars. She could tell a car from a
truck, but to find her own car
in a parking lot she had to walk
along reading off the license
plate numbers, which suggests
that her vision and her ability
to read numbers were both
intact.
Speculating can be fun, but
when can we hope to have
answers to some of these
questions about perception?
Some thirty-seven years have
passed since Kuffler worked out
the properties of retinal
ganglion cells. In the interval
the way we view both the
complexity of the visual
pathway and the range of
problems posed by perception
has radically changed. We
realize that discoveries such as
center-surround receptive
fields and orientation
selectivity represent merely
two steps in unraveling a puzzle
that contains hundreds of such
steps. The brain has many tasks
to perform, even in vision, and
millions of years of evolution
have produced solutions of
great ingenuity. With hard work
we may come to understand any
small subset of these, but it
seems unlikely that we will be
able to tackle them all. It would
be just as unrealistic to suppose
that we could ever understand
the intricate workings of each
of the millions of proteins
floating around in our bodies.
Philosophically, however, it is
important to have at least a few
examples--of neural circuits or
proteins--that we do
understand well: our ability to
unravel even a few of the
processes responsible for life--
or for perception, thought, or
emotions--tells us that total
understanding is in principle
possible, that we do not need to
appeal to mystical life forces--
or to the mind.