Talk:Neural coding: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:57, 30 May 2011

Revision as of 17:59, 30 May 2011

Line 64:

:::Concerning Looie496 position regarding neuroscience labs ( including Graybiel's lab) we should see the difference between experimental data processing and computational theoretical models. Few neuroscience labs have generated new computational theories! Importantly, good statistics on a wrong model (temporal coding model) does not make the science better doesn’t matter where is published. Experimentally, we are at the beginning of understanding the effect of electric field (endogenous field, ephaptic coupling) in computation. Regarding the second subject neural coding and NED are not equivalent, temporal coding models can be derived as particular examples of NED with no real predictive power, semantics or significance.[[User:Giovannistefano35|Giovannistefano35]] ([[User Giovannistefano35:Giovannistefano35|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 18:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::Giovannistefano I completely agree. I just added that link to show that bad statistics is published in high-impact journals, however indeed, statistical significance doesn't matter if the basic model is an epiphenomenon <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Goodwillein|Goodwillein]] ([[User talk:Goodwillein|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Goodwillein|contribs]]) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->