Talk:V. S. Ramachandran

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Center for Brain and Cognition" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Center for Brain and Cognition. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror neurons and the "broken mirror" theory of autism

Many of the "criticism" papers cited are outdated and do not represent current consensus. For example, the Guardian article from 2013, which was cited twice as evidence of "criticism" until I removed it, is so outdated that a major point of "criticism" was that human mirror neurons might not exist. Considerable research has occurred since 2013. The current consensus, as explained in 2018 review paper, is that mirror neurons play an important role in autism but other higher level systems are also important. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention that the paper you wish to cite in isolation is definitive is a curious one. The majority of serious research over the past ten years has reached the conclusion that mirror neurons do not play a significant role in autism. The paper you cite is very theoretical and it does not represent a consensus of published research. Hence, the most accurate statement is that there is a controversy that is not resolved. The five publications cited make this controversy clear.Neurorel (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should review the wikipedia article on mirror neurons. Neurorel (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the paper you cite (Social decision making in autism: On the impact of mirror neurons, motor control, and imitative behaviors) is a proposal for a new, more sophisticated model that may clarify the role of mirror neurons in autism. In the summary the authors state "To date, there is no consensus regarding a particular theory in ASDs and its underlying mechanisms." I take this to mean that the authors are proposing a theory that would need to be tested through further research.Neurorel (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning broken mirror hypothesis, Neurorel says " Please stop removing citations to published research that does not agree with your POV"

HouseOfChange You are entitled to your opinions about the role of mirror neurons in autism, but you are not entitled to assert your POV by deleting citations of important research that does not support your opinion.Neurorel (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neurorel: Please stop re-inserting links to old, old papers as if they are reflecting current disputes about mirror neurons in autism. The modern consensus is that mirror neurons are involved in ASD, see for example this 2015 review article: "Individuals with ASD have altered mirror neuron activity and reduced brain connectivity." From a 2016 review article: "The MNS continues to be a dominant neurobiological theory for autism. However, there remains too much disparity in the scientific community to begin discounting other current theories, or retreat from discovering new ones." According to this 2017 review paper "Evidence for dysfunction in the mirror neuron system (MNS) is increasingly being implicated in ASD (38–40)." Mirror neuron dysfunction is a model currently under discussion as one of the possible causes of ASD. Let us find some NPOV way to make that situation clear. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The research you single out was published 2006-2013 (?)so by your criteria it is not relevant (?) The review seems to be primarily focused on theories of over and under connectivity. At any rate, the review covers a lot of ground: I would suggest that his sort of material should be used to update the entry on mirror neurons. Lastly, I have attempted to avoid the very controversial issues that Ramachandran's approach raised in the ASD community --such as his characterization of autism as a condition that prevents people from experiencing empathy. There is a Scientific American article in which Ramchandran suggests administering MDMA to people who exhibit autism. He was obviously speculating but there was a very negative reaction in the ASD community. There is a lot of research going on but there is no consensus about what neurological conditions actually lead to autism.Neurorel (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, we should reference recent REVIEW articles and try to make clear what they say. Neither of us should have any "POV" aside from accurately representing to our readers what scientists say. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about using a reduced version this statement

"The complexity of MNS, and the expansive and integrative influence it contains throughout the brain has made it difficult for researchers to fully understand its procedure of activity and the phenotypes expressed by its dysfunction. Because humans have such a multifaceted system of social cognition and communication, appraising the value of mirror neurons in these processes has encountered inconsistencies in research and disagreement among the scientific community." (Walk like me, talk like me,The connection between mirror neurons and autism spectrum disorder,Jillian M. Saffin, BS, RBT and Hassaan Tohid, MBBS)Neurorel (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I willingly added the text you requested above, but I do not agree to your removal of further developments, after the uncertainty expressed in 2016, to consensus in 2017 and 2018 that mirror neurons are involved in ASD. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is about Ramachandran's research on mirror neurons, or to be more precise: Mu Wave Suppression as a proxy for mirror neuron activity. The research conducted by Ramachandran and Lindsay Oberman was inconclusive. Attempts to replicate Ramachandran's mu wave results failed This is an article about Ranachandran not about the history of mirror neuron theory. You have identified quite a few interesting research papers but they belong in the Wikipedia section on mirror neurons. Ramachandran's mu-wave based theory about mirror neurons has virtually nothing to do with the highly sophisticated models that are being proposed currently. You are tacitly suggesting that Ramachandran is at the forefront of autism research. UC San Diego is one of the national centers of autism research. However, to the best of my knowledge, Ramachandran has never conducted any research associated with the autism research program at UCSD. Neurorel (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is about Ramachandran's hypothesis about mirror neurons and autism, which dates back to 1999. He did a few experiments trying to test his hypothesis, the most recent of which is cited to 2007. It would be nuts to claim that he is currently "at the forefront" of autism research. You @Neurorel: have edit-warred to include in this section citations to articles criticizing Ramachandran's hypothesis. Why is it relevant to the Ramachandran article that some people criticized his ideas in 2010, but not relevant that two scholarly review articles support his ideas in 2017 and 2018? HouseOfChange (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The review articles from 2017 & 2018 actually argue against Ramachandran's theory of the role of mirror neurons! One is focused on theories of connectivity (and mentions MNS theories in passing). The other discusses a multi-level model that diminishes the importance of mirror neurons. Obviously, there is no consensus as to the role of the MNS in autism spectrum disorder. However this sort of discussion of various theories should be taken up in the entry on mirror neurons. Neurorel (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The text version now is fine, but the ratio of links you kept was unbalanced: 3 antique papers claiming MND plays zero role in autism to 1 modern review paper saying they are involved, as Ramachandran hypothesized. I replaced the 2010 link with a link to the 2017 review paper, which demonstrates very well that there has been considerable research and disagreement on MND. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best to use only the first sentence, and skip the citations back and forth from the research papers we are citing. The reviews are making assumptions, then admitting there is disagreement about the assumptions they are using! Depending on whether you adopt the Iacoboni view or the Greg Hickok view of mirror neurons you wind up with a different conclusion about the impact of mirror neuron activity on the neurological parameters of ASD. Ramachandran's mu suppression research, such as it was, doesn't actually make this dispute any clearer --his model for ADS is very simplistic. I suggest that we agree to disagree and work on the mirror neuron entry, which is clearly out of date.Neurorel (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is not about Ramachandran's mu suppression research but about his hypothesis that mirror neuron dysfunction could play a role in ASD.
Days ago, you edit-warred to keep linking this section to outdated articles by "science writers" such as Mo Costandi and Christian Jarrett who criticized Ramachandran's theory, including disputing if human beings had mirror neurons at all. The modern scientific consensus (two recent review articles) is that human mirror neurons exist, and that mirror neurons play some role in ASD. I do not agree to your most recent attempt to remove that true information and leave the impression here that "Here's how Ramachandran was criticized, and we still don't know if his critics are right or if he was." HouseOfChange (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order: 2014 comes before 2018, not afterward

Regarding this edit

However, prominent neuroscientists such as Greg Hickok and Henry Markram continue to dispute the contention that mirror neurons play a role in ASD.The Myth of Mirror Neurons: The Real Neuroscience of Communication and Cognition, Gregory Hickok, Review: The Quarterly Review of Biology, University of Chicago,Volume 91, Number 3,September 2016

First of all, a review written in 2016 of a book Greg Hickok wrote in 2014 does not demonstrate that ""prominent neuroscientists..continue to dispute" consensus opinions published in 2018. Second, a book review is not a scholarly review article. Third, the visible part of the book review is not flattering to Hickok or to Markram. It points out that 1) the no-MND Markram model Hickok likes is "based solely on a rat model of autism" and 2) Hickok skimps on reporting results favorable to MND. The review concludes by advising potential readers balance Hickok's unbalanced report by reading "several of the key mirror neuron publications." These are the reasons your edit does not belong where you put it, as the concluding sentence of a section about Ramachandran's theories on MND and autism.HouseOfChange (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This entry concerns the theories and research of VS Ramachandran. His "broken mirrors" hypothesis was put forward in papers published 2005-2008.

The section on the "Broken Mirrors" theory of autism should describe Ramachandran's contributions. A variety of competing theories have emerged since Ramachandran formulated his theory. Some of the recent theories/research support Ramachandran's ideas and some do not. However, this entry is about Ramachandran's contribution, NOT about the ongoing debate as to the role of mirror neurons in ASD.Neurorel (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a double standard here. You want to include, here and in other sections about R's theories, multiple links to people criticizing Ramachandran's theories. But you demand to exclude material about people confirming his theories. I think you will agree that removing both types of information will make the article less informative to readers. Both or neither should be included. Similarly, in the Mirror neurons section, I notice you had linked only to papers criticizing R's hypothesis that MNs are important to empathy. Therefore I added two recent scientific review papers that support R's ideas. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to your additions. I would like to add that your work on this entry has made it a better, more balanced account.Neurorel (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:V._S._Ramachandran"