Do all types of tissues adapt?

[CatchPhrase]

Muscles get stronger when they need to carry a larger load.

Bone becomes more dense if you gain weight or break them.

Skin gets thicker if more protection is needed (like calluces).

Would putting strain on the neural tissues in your cerebral cortex cause them to become more efficient? Nerves do not regenerate or reproduce, same as muscles and we know they can adapt.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

certain areas of the brain perform certain functions. HOWEVER, if those areas become damaged, other parts of the brain will compensate

so i would say, yes

 

[So]

Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

 

[CatchPhrase]

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

I am talking about training your brain to learn/process things faster.

 

[Kirby]

My CPU is a neural net processor, a learning computer.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: CatchPhrase

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

I am talking about training your brain to learn/process things faster.

Your brain can become better at performing certain tasks via a series of neurochemical processes with successful completion and repetition of certain behaviors. However, the exact nature of all said processes is not fully understood.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CatchPhrase
Muscles get stronger when they need to carry a larger load.

Bone becomes more dense if you gain weight or break them.

Skin gets thicker if more protection is needed (like calluces).

Would putting strain on the neural tissues in your cerebral cortex cause them to become more efficient? Nerves do not regenerate or reproduce, same as muscles and we know they can adapt.

neuronal tissues don't adapt... their networks adapt.

nerves DO regenerate AND reproduce.

explanation: in the cns, neurons cannot reproduce or regenerate... in the pns, they can. if you cut your arm off and reattached it, the nerve endings will regenerate and grow back towards each other. if you cut the nerves supplying a specific muscle, it will grow back and reproduce into other muscles too. the result is a loss in fine motor function because of the reproduction of neuromuscular junctions.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: CatchPhrase

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

I am talking about training your brain to learn/process things faster.

Make a Good Brain Great

Awesome book on how to get the most out of your gray matter. I have been following the program for about 4 month now and have noticed dramatic differences in how I learn and think about problems.

I concentrate better and for much longer than I could before. I can read for extended periods of time without getting lost in the words. I have made considerable improvements in mathematical and logical reasoning. And best of all, I am a much calmer and happier person in general which helps every aspect of brain function.

It is an unequivocal yes that you can train and improve your brain function considerably.

 

[Auggie]

CamKinase and Calmodulin act in neurons to increase facilitation and establish new neural activity. This Calcium-based process is remarkably similar to neuron repair with only some slight differences.

So basically, yes... the process of learning is similar to injury repair... but there's no good way to injure your neurons to specifically increase knowledge, so kinda no, also.

 

[sonambulo]

WAGHA WAGHA WAGHA

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

That's pretty much it. Reinforcement of that growth is done by repetition.

All systems of the human body change with stimulus, the brain is somewhat different but not by much. This is where "learning" and reinforcing that comes into play.

Look at ANY sports training or coaching. It's all about repetition. Make those pathways dominant by use and repetition.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Physical strain is different than mental strain. The brain is a living organism....when it's physically abused or overused, it may adjust the way it works to compensate. Of course, there are situations where brain damage occurs and it cannot compensate. In many situations though, neurological paths can be altered and a lot of function can be restored or even improved. A good example are people who suffer a stroke at an early age and have to relearn how to talk, walk, read, etc....many are doing it with 25-50% less brain tissue. Some are almost completely normal 5-10 years after the stroke.

As for learning, stimulating the brain different ways may make it more effective, but that requires a lot of work and conscious cognitive action, rather than subconscious absorption of data.

The body is an amazing thing and if you push its limits, the limits may or may not expand. The only way is to know what it will do is to push.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

That's pretty much it. Reinforcement of that growth is done by repetition.

All systems of the human body change with stimulus, the brain is somewhat different but not by much. This is where "learning" and reinforcing that comes into play.

Look at ANY sports training or coaching. It's all about repetition. Make those pathways dominant by use and repetition.

nerves don't learn. nerves don't adapt. nerves are nerves.

to explain this, you have to pretty much realize that there's no organic mass or anything like that that just creates things like memory or sexual desire or response time or anything. those things happen through nerve to nerve interactions in certain areas of the brain. it's all because of how they network.

so, to say that nerves adapt is false. nerves don't adapt. nerves don't change unless there's a problem (lack of nutrients, cancer, etc), in which case they'll change according to how the external problem dictates (lack of nutrients = atrophy, which isn't an adaptation, etc.).

however, neural networks CAN adapt. learning is not an adaptation. learning is learning. an adaptation is a compensation or a way to overcome and deal with a new situation. for example, your bones will get "thicker" (for sake of argument) when they are under more physical stress... bone's primary job is not to do that, it's to serve as structural support and muscle anchors and to produce blood... however, rather than being forced to break everytime bone is under stress, bone adapts and gets thicker in order to compensate for the new, imperfect situation it's under.

the reason why learning isn't an adaptation is because learning is something that the brain is meant to do. the brain is made to take input via your sense and make sense of everything going on in order for you to understand what's happening. that's it's job, so it's not an adaptation.

the way neurons adapt is ONLY through networking... and it adapts through reducing or increasing the number of free receptor sites for certain neurotransmitters. that's it. for example, if you decide you take drugs, your network of nerves in your brain will increase the number of receptors in order to adapt to the increase of dopamine your brain thinks it naturally has... which is why you will need more drugs in order to achieve a high as good as the one you had before.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

That's pretty much it. Reinforcement of that growth is done by repetition.

All systems of the human body change with stimulus, the brain is somewhat different but not by much. This is where "learning" and reinforcing that comes into play.

Look at ANY sports training or coaching. It's all about repetition. Make those pathways dominant by use and repetition.

nerves don't learn. nerves don't adapt. nerves are nerves.

to explain this, you have to pretty much realize that there's no organic mass or anything like that that just creates things like memory or sexual desire or response time or anything. those things happen through nerve to nerve interactions in certain areas of the brain. it's all because of how they network.

so, to say that nerves adapt is false. nerves don't adapt. nerves don't change unless there's a problem (lack of nutrients, cancer, etc), in which case they'll change according to how the external problem dictates (lack of nutrients = atrophy, which isn't an adaptation, etc.).

however, neural networks CAN adapt. learning is not an adaptation. learning is learning. an adaptation is a compensation or a way to overcome and deal with a new situation. for example, your bones will get "thicker" (for sake of argument) when they are under more physical stress... bone's primary job is not to do that, it's to serve as structural support and muscle anchors and to produce blood... however, rather than being forced to break everytime bone is under stress, bone adapts and gets thicker in order to compensate for the new, imperfect situation it's under.

the reason why learning isn't an adaptation is because learning is something that the brain is meant to do. the brain is made to take input via your sense and make sense of everything going on in order for you to understand what's happening. that's it's job, so it's not an adaptation.

the way neurons adapt is ONLY through networking... and it adapts through reducing or increasing the number of free receptor sites for certain neurotransmitters. that's it. for example, if you decide you take drugs, your network of nerves in your brain will increase the number of receptors in order to adapt to the increase of dopamine your brain thinks it naturally has... which is why you will need more drugs in order to achieve a high as good as the one you had before.

You more succiently said what I was trying to say. The cells do what they are programmed to do. I was trying to draw the line between stimulus of muscle to grow and transmitters/receptors of neural cells.

I would call that adaptation to conditions of the cell itself. Sorry for the butcher spelling, it's late. State dependant memory of cells and repetition and neural pathways is well understood. but i'm blah, blah, blah at this point.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

That's pretty much it. Reinforcement of that growth is done by repetition.

All systems of the human body change with stimulus, the brain is somewhat different but not by much. This is where "learning" and reinforcing that comes into play.

Look at ANY sports training or coaching. It's all about repetition. Make those pathways dominant by use and repetition.

nerves don't learn. nerves don't adapt. nerves are nerves.

to explain this, you have to pretty much realize that there's no organic mass or anything like that that just creates things like memory or sexual desire or response time or anything. those things happen through nerve to nerve interactions in certain areas of the brain. it's all because of how they network.

so, to say that nerves adapt is false. nerves don't adapt. nerves don't change unless there's a problem (lack of nutrients, cancer, etc), in which case they'll change according to how the external problem dictates (lack of nutrients = atrophy, which isn't an adaptation, etc.).

however, neural networks CAN adapt. learning is not an adaptation. learning is learning. an adaptation is a compensation or a way to overcome and deal with a new situation. for example, your bones will get "thicker" (for sake of argument) when they are under more physical stress... bone's primary job is not to do that, it's to serve as structural support and muscle anchors and to produce blood... however, rather than being forced to break everytime bone is under stress, bone adapts and gets thicker in order to compensate for the new, imperfect situation it's under.

the reason why learning isn't an adaptation is because learning is something that the brain is meant to do. the brain is made to take input via your sense and make sense of everything going on in order for you to understand what's happening. that's it's job, so it's not an adaptation.

the way neurons adapt is ONLY through networking... and it adapts through reducing or increasing the number of free receptor sites for certain neurotransmitters. that's it. for example, if you decide you take drugs, your network of nerves in your brain will increase the number of receptors in order to adapt to the increase of dopamine your brain thinks it naturally has... which is why you will need more drugs in order to achieve a high as good as the one you had before.

You more succiently said what I was trying to say. The cells do what they are programmed to do. I was trying to draw the line between stimulus of muscle to grow and transmitters/receptors of neural cells.

I would call that adaptation to conditions of the cell itself. Sorry for the butcher spelling, it's late. State dependant memory of cells and repetition and neural pathways is well understood. but i'm blah, blah, blah at this point.

neurons don't change. the number of receptor sites don't change (unless they die... you don't get more receptors). what happens is say that you have 10 receptors... 5 are taken up by dopamine and 5 are taken by something else. well, the area gets flooded with dopamine, so the adaptation is to allow 7 receptors to taken up by dopamine and 3 for something else.

what i'm understanding you saying is that you think receptors and neurotransmitters change, and since receptors are on neurons and neurotransmitters come from within neurons, neurons adapt. if i'm wrong, tell me, because i'm arguing that neurons don't adapt.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eits

neurons don't change. the number of receptor sites don't change (unless they die... you don't get more receptors). what happens is say that you have 10 receptors... 5 are taken up by dopamine and 5 are taken by something else. well, the area gets flooded with dopamine, so the adaptation is to allow 7 receptors to taken up by dopamine and 3 for something else.

what i'm understanding you saying is that you think receptors and neurotransmitters change, and since receptors are on neurons and neurotransmitters come from within neurons, neurons adapt. if i'm wrong, tell me, because i'm arguing that neurons don't adapt.

It's late, you're right and we are in far too much agreement.

I'm off to exercise my brain cells. Or kill them. I can't figure out which one is applicable. Eitherway the paths will be stimulated, will be used.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

That's pretty much it. Reinforcement of that growth is done by repetition.

All systems of the human body change with stimulus, the brain is somewhat different but not by much. This is where "learning" and reinforcing that comes into play.

Look at ANY sports training or coaching. It's all about repetition. Make those pathways dominant by use and repetition.

nerves don't learn. nerves don't adapt. nerves are nerves.

to explain this, you have to pretty much realize that there's no organic mass or anything like that that just creates things like memory or sexual desire or response time or anything. those things happen through nerve to nerve interactions in certain areas of the brain. it's all because of how they network.

so, to say that nerves adapt is false. nerves don't adapt. nerves don't change unless there's a problem (lack of nutrients, cancer, etc), in which case they'll change according to how the external problem dictates (lack of nutrients = atrophy, which isn't an adaptation, etc.).

however, neural networks CAN adapt. learning is not an adaptation. learning is learning. an adaptation is a compensation or a way to overcome and deal with a new situation. for example, your bones will get "thicker" (for sake of argument) when they are under more physical stress... bone's primary job is not to do that, it's to serve as structural support and muscle anchors and to produce blood... however, rather than being forced to break everytime bone is under stress, bone adapts and gets thicker in order to compensate for the new, imperfect situation it's under.

the reason why learning isn't an adaptation is because learning is something that the brain is meant to do. the brain is made to take input via your sense and make sense of everything going on in order for you to understand what's happening. that's it's job, so it's not an adaptation.

the way neurons adapt is ONLY through networking... and it adapts through reducing or increasing the number of free receptor sites for certain neurotransmitters. that's it. for example, if you decide you take drugs, your network of nerves in your brain will increase the number of receptors in order to adapt to the increase of dopamine your brain thinks it naturally has... which is why you will need more drugs in order to achieve a high as good as the one you had before.

You more succiently said what I was trying to say. The cells do what they are programmed to do. I was trying to draw the line between stimulus of muscle to grow and transmitters/receptors of neural cells.

I would call that adaptation to conditions of the cell itself. Sorry for the butcher spelling, it's late. State dependant memory of cells and repetition and neural pathways is well understood. but i'm blah, blah, blah at this point.

neurons don't change. the number of receptor sites don't change (unless they die... you don't get more receptors). what happens is say that you have 10 receptors... 5 are taken up by dopamine and 5 are taken by something else. well, the area gets flooded with dopamine, so the adaptation is to allow 7 receptors to taken up by dopamine and 3 for something else.

what i'm understanding you saying is that you think receptors and neurotransmitters change, and since receptors are on neurons and neurotransmitters come from within neurons, neurons adapt. if i'm wrong, tell me, because i'm arguing that neurons don't adapt.

Neurons do physically change in that the number of dendritic and axonal spines can increase or decrease based on activation or inhibition of nearby neuronal networks, thereby leading to an increase or decrease in the number of receptor sites on a particular neuron. Additionally, the frequency at which a neuron fires/can fire and the amount of neurotransmitter released during said firings also changes as a result of "learning."

Edit: I should also point out that neurogensis does in fact happen in the CNS, although to a more limited extent than initially hypothesized. As best I can remember, the only known site at which neurogensis occurs in an adult is the hippocampus.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: CatchPhrase
Muscles get stronger when they need to carry a larger load.

Bone becomes more dense if you gain weight or break them.

Skin gets thicker if more protection is needed (like calluces).

Would putting strain on the neural tissues in your cerebral cortex cause them to become more efficient? Nerves do not regenerate or reproduce, same as muscles and we know they can adapt.

The rewiring and streamlining of nerve connections in the hippocampus is what we believe to cause memory.

So yes.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: CrazyHelloDeli
Make a Good Brain Great

Awesome book on how to get the most out of your gray matter. I have been following the program for about 4 month now and have noticed dramatic differences in how I learn and think about problems.

I concentrate better and for much longer than I could before. I can read for extended periods of time without getting lost in the words. I have made considerable improvements in mathematical and logical reasoning. And best of all, I am a much calmer and happier person in general which helps every aspect of brain function.

It is an unequivocal yes that you can train and improve your brain function considerably.

Is that book anything more than a light self-help book?

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
if those areas become damaged, other parts of the brain will compensate

You got an issue? Here's a tissue.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

That's pretty much it. Reinforcement of that growth is done by repetition.

All systems of the human body change with stimulus, the brain is somewhat different but not by much. This is where "learning" and reinforcing that comes into play.

Look at ANY sports training or coaching. It's all about repetition. Make those pathways dominant by use and repetition.

nerves don't learn. nerves don't adapt. nerves are nerves.

to explain this, you have to pretty much realize that there's no organic mass or anything like that that just creates things like memory or sexual desire or response time or anything. those things happen through nerve to nerve interactions in certain areas of the brain. it's all because of how they network.

so, to say that nerves adapt is false. nerves don't adapt. nerves don't change unless there's a problem (lack of nutrients, cancer, etc), in which case they'll change according to how the external problem dictates (lack of nutrients = atrophy, which isn't an adaptation, etc.).

however, neural networks CAN adapt. learning is not an adaptation. learning is learning. an adaptation is a compensation or a way to overcome and deal with a new situation. for example, your bones will get "thicker" (for sake of argument) when they are under more physical stress... bone's primary job is not to do that, it's to serve as structural support and muscle anchors and to produce blood... however, rather than being forced to break everytime bone is under stress, bone adapts and gets thicker in order to compensate for the new, imperfect situation it's under.

the reason why learning isn't an adaptation is because learning is something that the brain is meant to do. the brain is made to take input via your sense and make sense of everything going on in order for you to understand what's happening. that's it's job, so it's not an adaptation.

the way neurons adapt is ONLY through networking... and it adapts through reducing or increasing the number of free receptor sites for certain neurotransmitters. that's it. for example, if you decide you take drugs, your network of nerves in your brain will increase the number of receptors in order to adapt to the increase of dopamine your brain thinks it naturally has... which is why you will need more drugs in order to achieve a high as good as the one you had before.

You more succiently said what I was trying to say. The cells do what they are programmed to do. I was trying to draw the line between stimulus of muscle to grow and transmitters/receptors of neural cells.

I would call that adaptation to conditions of the cell itself. Sorry for the butcher spelling, it's late. State dependant memory of cells and repetition and neural pathways is well understood. but i'm blah, blah, blah at this point.

neurons don't change. the number of receptor sites don't change (unless they die... you don't get more receptors). what happens is say that you have 10 receptors... 5 are taken up by dopamine and 5 are taken by something else. well, the area gets flooded with dopamine, so the adaptation is to allow 7 receptors to taken up by dopamine and 3 for something else.

what i'm understanding you saying is that you think receptors and neurotransmitters change, and since receptors are on neurons and neurotransmitters come from within neurons, neurons adapt. if i'm wrong, tell me, because i'm arguing that neurons don't adapt.

Neurons do physically change in that the number of dendritic and axonal spines can increase or decrease based on activation or inhibition of nearby neuronal networks, thereby leading to an increase or decrease in the number of receptor sites on a particular neuron. Additionally, the frequency at which a neuron fires/can fire and the amount of neurotransmitter released during said firings also changes as a result of "learning."

Edit: I should also point out that neurogensis does in fact happen in the CNS, although to a more limited extent than initially hypothesized. As best I can remember, the only known site at which neurogensis occurs in an adult is the hippocampus.

Eits has it. Or at least has what we think we know. It is also possible to change the amounts and combinations of NT released. You are correct about the hippocampus having neurogenesis in adults.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: So
Pretty sure nerves do adapt in a process we call "learning"

That's pretty much it. Reinforcement of that growth is done by repetition.

All systems of the human body change with stimulus, the brain is somewhat different but not by much. This is where "learning" and reinforcing that comes into play.

Look at ANY sports training or coaching. It's all about repetition. Make those pathways dominant by use and repetition.

nerves don't learn. nerves don't adapt. nerves are nerves.

to explain this, you have to pretty much realize that there's no organic mass or anything like that that just creates things like memory or sexual desire or response time or anything. those things happen through nerve to nerve interactions in certain areas of the brain. it's all because of how they network.

so, to say that nerves adapt is false. nerves don't adapt. nerves don't change unless there's a problem (lack of nutrients, cancer, etc), in which case they'll change according to how the external problem dictates (lack of nutrients = atrophy, which isn't an adaptation, etc.).

however, neural networks CAN adapt. learning is not an adaptation. learning is learning. an adaptation is a compensation or a way to overcome and deal with a new situation. for example, your bones will get "thicker" (for sake of argument) when they are under more physical stress... bone's primary job is not to do that, it's to serve as structural support and muscle anchors and to produce blood... however, rather than being forced to break everytime bone is under stress, bone adapts and gets thicker in order to compensate for the new, imperfect situation it's under.

the reason why learning isn't an adaptation is because learning is something that the brain is meant to do. the brain is made to take input via your sense and make sense of everything going on in order for you to understand what's happening. that's it's job, so it's not an adaptation.

the way neurons adapt is ONLY through networking... and it adapts through reducing or increasing the number of free receptor sites for certain neurotransmitters. that's it. for example, if you decide you take drugs, your network of nerves in your brain will increase the number of receptors in order to adapt to the increase of dopamine your brain thinks it naturally has... which is why you will need more drugs in order to achieve a high as good as the one you had before.

You more succiently said what I was trying to say. The cells do what they are programmed to do. I was trying to draw the line between stimulus of muscle to grow and transmitters/receptors of neural cells.

I would call that adaptation to conditions of the cell itself. Sorry for the butcher spelling, it's late. State dependant memory of cells and repetition and neural pathways is well understood. but i'm blah, blah, blah at this point.

neurons don't change. the number of receptor sites don't change (unless they die... you don't get more receptors). what happens is say that you have 10 receptors... 5 are taken up by dopamine and 5 are taken by something else. well, the area gets flooded with dopamine, so the adaptation is to allow 7 receptors to taken up by dopamine and 3 for something else.

what i'm understanding you saying is that you think receptors and neurotransmitters change, and since receptors are on neurons and neurotransmitters come from within neurons, neurons adapt. if i'm wrong, tell me, because i'm arguing that neurons don't adapt.

Neurons do physically change in that the number of dendritic and axonal spines can increase or decrease based on activation or inhibition of nearby neuronal networks, thereby leading to an increase or decrease in the number of receptor sites on a particular neuron. Additionally, the frequency at which a neuron fires/can fire and the amount of neurotransmitter released during said firings also changes as a result of "learning."

Edit: I should also point out that neurogensis does in fact happen in the CNS, although to a more limited extent than initially hypothesized. As best I can remember, the only known site at which neurogensis occurs in an adult is the hippocampus.

that's why i said neuronal networks adapt. the neurons themselves don't adapt.

learning is something that neuronal networks are made to do... therefore, it's not an adaptation. an increase in firing isn't an adaptation.

if someone has a hemispherectomy, there isn't a neuronal adaptation on the remaining side... the neurons don't get bigger and more tightly packed or anything. the network just renetwork and fire differently to adapt to the new situation. they compensate for the missing other half. there's no difference in myelination (to my knowledge) or neuronal metaplasia from uni to bipolar or perkinje or anything. the pyramids don't move towards the side of the remaining hemisphere like a flower to a sun.

i didn't know about the neurogenesis in adults in the hippocampus. good to know.

edit: i haven't read about an increase in axonal or dendritic spines occuring in the cns... i've only heard about it in the pns. i've heard about network rewiring, as in one terminal bulb leaving the neuron it normally synapses with and synapsing with a different neuron.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: eits
that's why i said neuronal networks adapt. the neurons themselves don't adapt.

learning is something that neuronal networks are made to do... therefore, it's not an adaptation. an increase in firing isn't an adaptation.

if someone has a hemispherectomy, there isn't a neuronal adaptation on the remaining side... the neurons don't get bigger and more tightly packed or anything. the network just renetwork and fire differently to adapt to the new situation. they compensate for the missing other half. there's no difference in myelination (to my knowledge) or neuronal metaplasia from uni to bipolar or perkinje or anything. the pyramids don't move towards the side of the remaining hemisphere like a flower to a sun.

i didn't know about the neurogenesis in adults in the hippocampus. good to know.

Ok then, I see the point you were making.

As for neurogenesis, it's a relatively recent finding (late-90's/early-00's perhaps?), and most researchers don't yet fully understand what functional purposes it serves, nor why it's limited to those particular areas (dentate gyrus and possibly a handful of other locations).

Then again, I'm not a neurologist, so I'm sure they'd be much more qualified to talk about all that than would I.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: eits
that's why i said neuronal networks adapt. the neurons themselves don't adapt.

learning is something that neuronal networks are made to do... therefore, it's not an adaptation. an increase in firing isn't an adaptation.

if someone has a hemispherectomy, there isn't a neuronal adaptation on the remaining side... the neurons don't get bigger and more tightly packed or anything. the network just renetwork and fire differently to adapt to the new situation. they compensate for the missing other half. there's no difference in myelination (to my knowledge) or neuronal metaplasia from uni to bipolar or perkinje or anything. the pyramids don't move towards the side of the remaining hemisphere like a flower to a sun.

i didn't know about the neurogenesis in adults in the hippocampus. good to know.

Ok then, I see the point you were making.

As for neurogenesis, it's a relatively recent finding (late-90's/early-00's perhaps?), and most researchers don't yet fully understand what functional purposes it serves, nor why it's limited to those particular areas (dentate gyrus and possibly a handful of other locations).

Then again, I'm not a neurologist, so I'm sure they'd be much more qualified to talk about all that than would I.

i hated neuro.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: eits
that's why i said neuronal networks adapt. the neurons themselves don't adapt.

learning is something that neuronal networks are made to do... therefore, it's not an adaptation. an increase in firing isn't an adaptation.

if someone has a hemispherectomy, there isn't a neuronal adaptation on the remaining side... the neurons don't get bigger and more tightly packed or anything. the network just renetwork and fire differently to adapt to the new situation. they compensate for the missing other half. there's no difference in myelination (to my knowledge) or neuronal metaplasia from uni to bipolar or perkinje or anything. the pyramids don't move towards the side of the remaining hemisphere like a flower to a sun.

i didn't know about the neurogenesis in adults in the hippocampus. good to know.

Ok then, I see the point you were making.

As for neurogenesis, it's a relatively recent finding (late-90's/early-00's perhaps?), and most researchers don't yet fully understand what functional purposes it serves, nor why it's limited to those particular areas (dentate gyrus and possibly a handful of other locations).

Then again, I'm not a neurologist, so I'm sure they'd be much more qualified to talk about all that than would I.

i hated neuro.

Agreed. I'll take the psych. They can have most of the bio and anatomy.